Mars Terraforming Thread

[Jonboy]

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.

Maybe you could even have a Kickstarter? Let me know when I can take my helmet off in Hellas Planitia.

[sojourner]

The funny thing is we'll most likely end up having to evacuate any colony on Mars that's been established by the time a terraforming plan is put into action.

[PB666]

This thread is a reminder why we need more mandatory science education in our public schools and universities.

The forces that act to give Mars the climate that is has are unlikely to be changed by man. If you want Mars to retain more atmosphere you would have to give it more mass. So far as yet I haven't had anyone argue for moving the asteroid belt masses into collision courses with Mars (equally foolish but with alot more water).

To be a colony, it has to be self-sustaining, at least in theory, if you don't have an EM density capable of this, it cannot be a colony to begin with and anything you do put on Mars is basically a death row prison complex.

[Wesreidau]

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.

This is a pretty annoying post. Did I say it would happen overnight? No. Did I say it would blow away in a thousand years? No. Did I say it was impossible? No. I said it shouldn't be done unless we could render it relatively closed-cycle, IE, replenished. Don't strawman strangers.

[sojourner]

This is a pretty annoying post. Did I say it would happen overnight? No. Did I say it would blow away in a thousand years? No. Did I say it was impossible? No. I said it shouldn't be done unless we could render it relatively closed-cycle, IE, replenished. Don't strawman strangers.

So you throw an ice asteroid at the planet every 10,000 years. That's more than enough considering it will take millions of years to get blown away by the solar wind. How freakin "closed cycle" do you need it to be if a million years isn't good enough for you?

[magnemoe]

This thread is a reminder why we need more mandatory science education in our public schools and universities.

The forces that act to give Mars the climate that is has are unlikely to be changed by man. If you want Mars to retain more atmosphere you would have to give it more mass. So far as yet I haven't had anyone argue for moving the asteroid belt masses into collision courses with Mars (equally foolish but with alot more water).

To be a colony, it has to be self-sustaining, at least in theory, if you don't have an EM density capable of this, it cannot be a colony to begin with and anything you do put on Mars is basically a death row prison complex.

Mars leaked away its atmosphere in a billion years, timescale is important. Using asteroids to melt the co2 would be plausible, it require that you are able to move asteroids.

I doubt it would be enough by itself, Mars have had lots of impacts some in the polar regions before. One issue might be dust who offset the greenhouse or the effect is too weak so CO2 can still freeze.

Mars lack of magnetic shield is an more serious issue, doubt the thicker atmosphere would be enough.

Lets move some of Venus atmosphere to Mars.

[Wesreidau]

So you throw an ice asteroid at the planet every 10,000 years. That's more than enough considering it will take millions of years to get blown away by the solar wind. How freakin "closed cycle" do you need it to be if a million years isn't good enough for you?

Why that's a great idea in Post #6. Mine was Post #5. Please critique me for information discussed in Posts #1-4.

[sojourner]

Why that's a great idea in Post #6. Mine was Post #5.

Then why are you complaining about "waiting until we can make it closed cycle" in post #29 ????

[Wesreidau]

"I said" is the past tense of "I say". I am clarifying statements made in the past which people have distorted, and I will not be so rude as to pursue them over it. But please do not further an argument that is as needless and unnessicarily personalized as this one. I hope this clears things up for you.

[Hal]

I think the point that's trying to be made is that even if the atmosphere is going to get blown away in a billion years or so, and isn't technically self-sustaining, it's good enough. If humans (or some descendant of us, obviously very different) are still around a billion years from now, terraforming a single planet is going to be laughably easy, if we aren't all artificial and don't even care about the atmosphere at that point. If we're not around then who cares? If it would actually work to substantially improve the Martian atmosphere, I don't see why we shouldn't go for it (once/if we actually get serious about colonization).

The lack of magnetosphere might be an issue though, like magnemoe said. I don't know enough to say what kind of an issue, though. But anyway, an atmosphere's probably not going to hurt.

[Wesreidau]

And I don't question that we're talking geological periods of time, but we have one suggestion it will diminish in ten thousand years and you're saying a billion years. If we replenish with an asteroid every ten thousand years, we'll find ourselves using up one hundred thousand asteroids to keep Mars 'habitable' for a billion years. And we can assume we'll have a hundred thousand asteroids to burn or just won't care from our Dyson sphere, but this all assumes far too much over far too long of a time frame to have any reason to discuss it. Why do we want Mars habitable on the surface, to escape the Sun's death? Well *waves hands* in a billion years we'll just build a rocket into the crust of the Earth that shoots us into a better orbit. It should be plain that discussing these problems in geological periods of time lets us get very far away from reality very quickly.

I think we need to examine the goal. The proposal is to create .3 bars of pressure, the Armstrong limit, on the surface of Mars with a liquid ocean. I ask why. The ocean will cover a large fraction of surface resources, the atmosphere will hinder launching to orbit, said atmosphere must be taller than expected to compensate for gravity when creating .3 bar, the surface remains irradiated, and no truly greater degree of human habitability is achieved. Structures must still be constructed radiation-hard and air-tight, EVA activities will still require protection from the elements if not radiation, and the planet as a whole will be only dubiously more useful than before. I would even argue it would be less useful; with its rarefied atmosphere (.06 bar) and low gravity, Mars is an ideal launch site. Perhaps we can turn Mars into some sort of boreal forest or scrubland in ten thousand years, but we should only do so as a re-purposing once Mars is no longer needed as a launch site. As it stands any space agency would rather be launching from Mars' atmosphere and gravity well than Earth. Why not capitalize on that?

[Findthepin1]

Tharsis will always stick right into space. Rockets can launch from there. You do have a point, though. But eventually the Sun will have a good chance of absorbing Earth, and people expect Mars to be safe from that. If we don't spread life to other worlds it's just going to die here, and we're very likely to end up using life as a catalyst in the terraforming.

[KerikBalm]

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.

Except for... all that carbon that you've seperated from the O2... and anything else we make taht might be flammable (which is a lot of things).

As long as we're being unrealistic and talking about 90 degree plane changes to moons, and deorbiting moons, why not just put a glass dome over the hellas impact basin, and make a colony there.

An 8km high ceiling should be sufficiently high that people will feel like the inside is terraformed and not a glorified dome (yet, a huge glorified dome, of an absurd scale, is exactly what it would be)

[andrewas]

Not a glass dome, something more flexible so it can be supported by the atmosphere under it. But even if you dome huge craters that way, you're still creating fragile habitats, whereas a properly terraformed Mars needs its atmosphere topped up every few millenia at most.

[baggers]

In a more "reallist" point of view, we don't even know today if the actual plants and stuffs we have on earth can live on Mars.

It seem the small gravity causes problem for earth plant reproduction. And causes quickly problems on even perfectly shaped and very closely monitored adults humans: heart problems, bones problems, muscles problems... We are not sure a baby conceived and born on Mars will be viable, and if it will growth correctly.

That's some serious problems we certainly have to invest and resolve before a high-scale Mars terraforming.

A small dome seem a good first step.

Edited May 26, 2015 by baggers

[Findthepin1]

We don't even know today if the actual plants and stuff we have on Earth can live on Mars.

Yes and no. The following is pure speculation. Please don't mistake it for probably scientifically sound theories. I am not responsible for any mistakes I make, the computer is because it's what processed my writing. On the off chance I'm wrong please let me know.

Three or four years ago there was a test by the Deutsches Zentrum für Raumfahrt, it involved an advanced MESC (Mars Environmental Simulation Chamber) and a slightly less advanced BOG (Bucket of Germs, would've been more fitting if it were BUG). They built the simulator, added pressure controls, a radiation-creating thing, temperature fluctuations, and all these other bits and bobs, and they turned it on. Then they probably took the whole thing apart and put in the bucket of germs, and rebuilt it, I assume. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

Anyway, they left it alone for about a month. When they came back, a lichen and some kind of cyanobacteria had survived and were active. These cyanobacteria and lichens produce oxygen, so even if they are the only things capable of living properly on Mars as it is, they will create conditions (if planted there in masses) suitable for oxygen-requiring plants to survive (IIRC ten millibars of O2 is the requirement for the most Mars-hardy real plants).

The low gravity also doesn't seem like a problem to me, if we're talking "pre-plants" like lichens. Real plants, being more complex, may have issues with the gravity. I think (my guess) that lichens or cyanobacteria would only be affected in that they can grow taller and become less dense. Maybe the high radiation will cause mutations, which might tell the plant to become denser and grow lower to the ground, at which point the problem would be solved. I don't think gravity will be significant in organisms with relatively short genomes. Something like a giant sequoia may actually be better, being able to grow taller because of the low gravity.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Findthepin1
I'm not for anything else either.

[baggers]

The "gravity problem" is not for a plant to be able to grow more or less dense or more or less taller, but what it induce to their "small mechanisms" like reproduction and growing from a seed. Which seed only germinate if certain precise conditions meet for example.

You're right when you say that "crude" plants or bacteria are more able to resist to these sort of changes. A lichen for example can reproduce by cuttings itself on almost any surface, he don't need a sexual complex aerial reproduction, or precise temperature, composition and humidity of soil. (but you will need some water cycle and nutriments at least).

These sorts of crude organisms is called "pioneers" for a reason: they are the first (and last) to grown in inhospitable lands on earth. The "more complex" life come way after. And often it's a very specialised "new" life ^^ We have many "niche" on earth, with endemic fauna and flora that evolution create in very long times.

- - - Updated - - -

Apart from these "pionner" and crude plants (and maybe a tardigrade or 2 ^^), the Martian flora will be endemic.

We can accelerate the process by "trying" some genetical improvements on actual plants (we will quickly need a viable martian cereal for example, and we know how to make GMO ^^)

It's certainly a very interressing experience.

And at a point, we will probably go trough the same process for introducing humans ^^

Edited May 26, 2015 by baggers

[KerikBalm]

Three or four years ago there was a test by the Deutsches Zentrum für Raumfahrt, it involved an advanced MESC (Mars Environmental Simulation Chamber) and a slightly less advanced BOG (Bucket of Germs, would've been more fitting if it were BUG). They built the simulator, added pressure controls, a radiation-creating thing, temperature fluctuations, and all these other bits and bobs, and they turned it on. ...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063313002055

I think they probably used too much water

" Relative humidity: 0.1–75%"

And their "protected condition" decreased the irradiation to simulate being in a crack/protected environment, but did not decrease the light exposure.

Also, 34 days of survival does not mean long term viability, or that it is capable of expanding and growing.

They showed the survival was in a metabolically active state, not a metabolically inert state like spore survival that was previously shown... but lets not over extrapolate.

Its still highly unlikely that any lichen transplanted ot mars would be able to spread, but instead its likely that it would be all dead within a year.

[Findthepin1]

Would these things survive better if the pressure were increased? Maybe 0.1-0.2 atm of carbon dioxide, and that should lessen the radiation?

[Wesreidau]

Would these things survive better if the pressure were increased? Maybe 0.1-0.2 atm of carbon dioxide, and that should lessen the radiation?

Plants on Earth are basically CO2-starved, and something like a thousand times earth's CO2 level would make rice grow like bamboo, if it could still get the oxygen it needed for aerobic respiration (yes, plants use oxygen too). Sunlight would still be diminished due to distance from the Sun, but the improved efficiency easily makes up for that. There's probably a few tough species that could take to Mars and probably adapt and evolve quite rapidly.

But all this begs a question, if you can grow Earth lichen on Mars then why is Mars not covered in Mars lichen? The answer is almost certainly radiation. Long-term I doubt species can survive ongoing genetic damage like that. Humans certainly not. We'll need to be under a few meters of rock, so I continue to wonder why we're letting all the good air out.

[-Velocity-]

I would even argue it would be less useful; with its rarefied atmosphere (.06 bar) and low gravity, Mars is an ideal launch site. Perhaps we can turn Mars into some sort of boreal forest or scrubland in ten thousand years, but we should only do so as a re-purposing once Mars is no longer needed as a launch site. As it stands any space agency would rather be launching from Mars' atmosphere and gravity well than Earth. Why not capitalize on that?

But that's not a valid excuse, as there are much better launch and construction sites, so Mars is very far from ideal. Ceres may be an EXCELLENT one, for example- abundant ice below the crust for fuel and living, silicates and other non-volatiles on the surface for building materials, a 9 hour day, very low gravity (but enough gravity to be useful), no moons, and no atmosphere at all. You could launch rockets from the surface to orbit very easily, or with the fast rate of spin, low gravity, and lack of low-orbiting moons, build a space elevator with extreme ease (even using current materials technology). Ceres is also close enough to the Sun to make solar panels still reasonably useful. On the other hand, Mars is a planetary-mass body in the habitable zone of Sol. If we make the atmosphere thick enough and of the right composition, it will be capable of sustaining life for millions upon millions of years without needing replenishment- essentially forever, on a human time scale.

Furthermore, there would be a second benefit of increasing the atmospheric pressure, even if it were not breathable- it would make colonies on the surface easier to build, as there wouldn't be a massive difference between the pressure inside and the pressure outside. You'd just need a mask to go outside, also. Even with a thicker atmosphere, SSTO with a high payload fraction would still be easy.

Edited May 26, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Wesreidau]

Mars is not "gas mask" habitable if we give it a perfectly Earth-like atmosphere. You would still die of radiation poisoning because there is no magnetosphere, and there is no known way to fix that. I'd like a green Mars too. I just don't see it as probable.

[baggers]

Mars is not "gas mask" habitable if we give it a perfectly Earth-like atmosphere. You would still die of radiation poisoning because there is no magnetosphere, and there is no known way to fix that. I'd like a green Mars too. I just don't see it as probable.

For what I know, it's not the magnetospher that protect us from solar radiations, but the atmospher.

Magnetospher help to protect the atmospher, but ultimately, it's the atmospher that block theses radiations.

It doesn't solve the actual soil radiation contamination, nowaday.

[peadar1987]

Mars is not "gas mask" habitable if we give it a perfectly Earth-like atmosphere. You would still die of radiation poisoning because there is no magnetosphere, and there is no known way to fix that. I'd like a green Mars too. I just don't see it as probable.

The radiation levels on Mars are about 0.7 mSv/day as it stands, or 255mSv/year. Radiation poisoning starts to set in at about 400mSv in a single dose, so you wouldn't even be getting close.

Increased cancer risk starts at about 100mSv a year. Anything less than this is statistically insignificant.

A 2-year stay on Mars, a la Mark Watney, would see you 1.2 times as likely to develop cancer as somebody who had stayed at home, or, to put it another way, raises your risk of developing some form of cancer at some point in your life from about 40% to about 50%. To put that in perspective, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day increases the risk of developing cancer by over twice this amount.

An atmosphere can block out the vast majority of cosmic radiation just through sheer bulk mass. We use lead or steel to shield nuclear reactors. Lead isn't magical, it's just very dense. In the grand scheme of things, a tonne of lead and a tonne of air will block about the same amount of radiation (this isn't strictly true, as air is quite transparent to certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, but it's a decent approximation), just the lead takes up less space for the same shielding, on account of being 11,000 times as dense. 11,000 metres of air will shield you the same amount as one metre of lead.

As baggers has said, the main benefit of a magnetosphere is that it protects the upper part of the atmosphere from being stripped away by energetic collisions with the solar wind. It's not a particularly important in the actual dose rate at the surface.

Edited May 27, 2015 by peadar1987

[Jonboy]

For what I know, it's not the magnetospher that protect us from solar radiations, but the atmospher.

Magnetospher help to protect the atmospher, but ultimately, it's the atmospher that block theses radiations.

It doesn't solve the actual soil radiation contamination, nowaday.

The magnetosphere actually plays a huge role in protecting the Earth from bombardment by solar wind. Most particles are deflected, with some entering near the North and South poles (the cause of most auroras), and others being trapped in the Van Allen belts.

But yes, the atmosphere is the main source of protection against high-energy cosmic rays, which originate from outside our solar system. I suspect both an atmosphere and a magnetosphere should be needed, to protect against solar flares and cosmic radiation. The two go hand in hand.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Jonboy