Could We Terraform Mars???

[ARS]

The point is, it's much more easier (and reasonable) to build a colony on other planet than trying to terraform it. Especially considering that terraforming is only possible for planets with atmosphere (That means: Venus and Mars) and it's a VERY long process (Which takes hundred if not thousands of years to be able to transform a planet into habitable level, unless we are willing to wait for that long) while colonies can be built on a planet without atmosphere (That means more targets of opportunity). Also, the initial cost of setting up a terraforming facilities on a planet would be gargantuan compared to setting a colony on a planet. Almost none of the terraforming concept incorporate economic strategies and most of their models and expectations seem highly optimistic. Not to mention national pride, rivalries between nations and politics in the past that drives the the motivation for space exploration.

Edited April 26, 2017 by ARS

[sevenperforce]

On a slightly similar note: what about partial terraforming? Or, in another way, how life-viable can we make Mars without actually going through the whole process?

What would self-sufficient colonies and cities on Mars look like before terraforming is actually successful?

[kerbiloid]

Green oases on the bottom of deep craters where air pressure is high enough.

The great Olympus Mons plateau, 20+ km high, cold and huge, gathering clouds from a quarter of the planet and making bad weather hundreds kilometers around. And its lesser siblings in other parts of the Mars.

Edited April 27, 2017 by kerbiloid

[peadar1987]

13 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

On a slightly similar note: what about partial terraforming? Or, in another way, how life-viable can we make Mars without actually going through the whole process?

What would self-sufficient colonies and cities on Mars look like before terraforming is actually successful?

Well giving Mars an atmosphere of ~6% the pressure of earth's would mean your blood wouldn't boil at atmospheric pressure, and you could breathe with an oxygen mask, and go outside wearing (extremely) warm clothes.

Mars has a surface gravity of 0.38g, and a surface area 0.28 that of earth's, so an atmosphere 82% of the mass of earth's would give the same surface atmospheric pressure. An atmosphere 6% as thick as earth's would therefore have a mass of 2.5*10¹⁷kg.

A decent sized comet (let's say Halley's comet) has a mass of about 10¹⁴ kg, so even if that's all ice and volatiles you'd need to smash 1,000 of them into the planet to give you that atmosphere. Your best bet would probably be to redirect an icy Jupiter or Saturn Trojan. However, that's currently far, far out of our technological reach. You'd need some sort of nuclear fusion torch drive.

The other option is "building" an atmosphere from gases produced in-situ on the Martian surface. I don't know enough chemistry to say what the best candidate for that would be.

[YNM]

Terraforming Mars... Well I suppose the bigger problem is how to sustain that. You can achieve similar results from widely different methods.

I suppose that given the violent nature and long timescales for most of the proposed process it might ends up having significant losses. You can have an atmo, but how fast is that atmo lost ? Would the soil turns viable before we have to redo everything ? And so on...

So, one thing to underline : if we ever made it, say thanks to humanity. Probably everyone alive would be in touch with it.

[Adstri]

Mars has no magnetosphere, and me might be able to make a synthetic one, but it likely wouldn't cover a very large region. Unless we could melt its outer core, but that would take forever.

[magnemoe]

49 minutes ago, Adstriduum said:

Mars has no magnetosphere, and me might be able to make a synthetic one, but it likely wouldn't cover a very large region. Unless we could melt its outer core, but that would take forever.

Yes, still the atmosphere would last for lots of million years, 
Keeping it topped up is trivial compared to teraforming. 

[ModZero]

Right now we're having trouble keeping terra terraformed, so I'll remain skeptical.

[Exploro]

4 hours ago, ModZero said:

Right now we're having trouble keeping terra terraformed, so I'll remain skeptical.

That fact alone that mankind can effect changes to an environment on a planetary scale show we could do so elsewhere; given time, resources, and will. Likewise means to reverse the deterimental effects are in the realm well within the technologically possible; the sequestration or the capturing of CO2 gases for instance. Obviously there is more to the global warming problem here on Earth that technology alone can't overcome but that is outside the scope of this discussion.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Exploro

[kerbiloid]

Though when 100 km/s will be available, all planets will be available equally. This means early thermonukes and definitely will happen much earlier than any colonization. Then they will ask: why mars? Let's choose what's really promising. And I'm afraid, Mars and Venus are at the very bottom of the list.

[NSEP]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Though when 100 km/s will be available, all planets will be available equally. This means early thermonukes and definitely will happen much earlier than any colonization. Then they will ask: why mars? Let's choose what's really promising. And I'm afraid, Mars and Venus are at the very bottom of the list.

Then what planets and moons are on top?

[Green Baron]

8 hours ago, Exploro said:

That fact alone that mankind can effect changes to an environment on a planetary scale show we could do so elsewhere; given time, resources, and will. Likewise means to reverse the deterimental effects are in the realm well within the technologically possible; the sequestration or the capturing of CO2 gases for instance. Obviously there is more to the global warming problem here on Earth that technology alone can't overcome but that is outside the scope of this discussion.

Ah, but that is because we as a species just exploit without responsibility and leave thoughtlessly our rubbish behind. Like bacteria in a petri dish that grow until resources are gone and then die over the excrements. It is not a planned deed or concerted action that we "produce" co2, it is just irresponsibility.

Archeology teaches us that people, once houses and sessile living was invented, did the same until they had to move on or beat on the neighbours. Personally we may take some action these days like separating rubbish or walking instead of driving, but when it comes to struggling or to cut down on wealth or gainings "we" leave it. Read the news :-)

As to the op: no, of course we can not terraform a planet. Energies needed and masses relocated are far beyond what is even marginally thinkable. Even on earth you need 100.000s of people and a continent wide production chain and economy to build e.g. a large dam to produce electric power. We can't even take 20tons which might represent a habitat for 5 people for 2 years, to mars and it doesn't look like this will change in the next 2-3 decades.

We can't even "terraform" a desert or a glacier on earth. Only with continuing support from outside can people live there, and it is not funny.

p.s.:the processes we talk about are in the billion years range. Maybe faster on the discovery channel ... :-)

[kerbiloid]

Imho, for terraforming - none, for colonization - moons of Saturn as resource base and orbital colony as habitat.

Kinda, ninja'd

[ModZero]

10 hours ago, Exploro said:

That fact alone that mankind can effect changes to an environment on a planetary scale show we could do so elsewhere;

There is a world (hue hue) of difference between doing something as an unwanted side-effect of mass-scale activity, and doing something in a controlled manner as a condition to enable similar scale of activity.

I mean, for a very distant comparison: I can, technically, defeat a squad of fully trained marines. Just put me in a car. I can't drive, so that's how I'd "defeat" them.

That doesn't mean I'm able to defeat a squad of fully trained marines on purpose. Frankly, a malnourished kitten is a challenge.

(OTOH, never underestimate a malnourished kitten, here's an example of a kitten using psychological warfare against a soldier).

EDIT: in b4 "so we just have to try very hard to not terraform Mars"

Edited June 13, 2017 by ModZero

[razark]

38 minutes ago, ModZero said:

I mean, for a very distant comparison: I can, technically, defeat a squad of fully trained marines. Just put me in a car. I can't drive, so that's how I'd "defeat" them.

That doesn't mean I'm able to defeat a squad of fully trained marines on purpose. Frankly, a malnourished kitten is a challenge.

Well, the question here is if it is possible to terraform Mars, not if it is likely.  Even if it is a side effect, we've demonstrated that we can have an effect.  (It just becomes a question of funding and will, plus time.)

 

In your analogy, it's true that you're not likely to win, but the question becomes "do cars exist?".  The answer to that would be "yes".

[kerbiloid]

If one can terraform a planet, does he/she really need one? Much easier to capture an asteroid and terraform it into a palace of your dream.

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Green Baron]

33 minutes ago, razark said:

Well, the question here is if it is possible to terraform Mars, not if it is likely.

 

Ok, i won't get into politics because that'll not make the picture better.

If terraforming includes building up a biosphere then nobody (edit: including of course me :-)) here can estimate the complexities and interdependencies earths biosphere has.

Just to give you a feeling of what we are talking about: it took about a billion years from the beginning of an oceanwide production of oxygen through photosynthesis until a remarkable rise of oxygen in the atmosphere because other stuff had to react and bind free oxygen, mainly through weathering. This is beyond technology or will.

A colony, maybe in 200 years, if all goes well until then, but "terraforming" ?

Edited June 13, 2017 by Green Baron

[Urses]

In means of full teraforming we need to rebuild a atmosphere completly in a nitrooxy version to make it habiatable for common human and a ecosphere he need to survive. For this you need as one of needs a stable magnetic field, bc humans and Cosmic radiation don't play well along. We lack at the moment the ability to generate this one as artifically started "natural phenomenon" or fully artificaly generated field (somehow it tingles in the mind like forcefield).

This means actually every colonisation will be a prozess to build habitats as domes or underground facilities.

Because it is a realy expensive peojekt we need efforts that are global and i am not realy sure that "humanity" is able to say let bring our animosities to side and work together...

Thus said we have to look on science fields where work of some countries get a profitable outwork. And i think the genetics and prostetics would enable the colonisation efforts. Something like Human MK2 with symbiothical skin bakterias which generates oxygen and hydrocarbonates from sunlight and atmospheric CO2 for brain to work in a cybernetic body to reduce needed enviromental adaptions, but enable for a cognitive being to interact with the new world.

Just my 2 pens

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

[ModZero]

1 hour ago, razark said:

Well, the question here is if it is possible to terraform Mars, not if it is likely.  Even if it is a side effect, we've demonstrated that we can have an effect.  (It just becomes a question of funding and will, plus time.)

Nah, we displayed we can unintentionally alter an atmosphere as a side effect. It doesn't mean we can do it differently, without doing all the other things that the original change was a side effect of. Organisational and infrastructure requirements are important, if you ignore them then we can do everything.

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

Ok, i won't get into politics because that'll not make the picture better.

If terraforming includes building up a biosphere then nobody (edit: including of course me :-)) here can estimate the complexities and interdependencies earths biosphere has.

Just to give you a feeling of what we are talking about: it took about a billion years from the beginning of an oceanwide production of oxygen through photosynthesis until a remarkable rise of oxygen in the atmosphere because other stuff had to react and bind free oxygen, mainly through weathering. This is beyond technology or will.

A colony, maybe in 200 years, if all goes well until then, but "terraforming" ?

An mars colony is an question about money, but also about colony definition. Would an research base with 70 people who was 90% self sufficient in food be an colony?
Teraforming mars is another thing. Theoretical possible but would require large scale space infrastructure, even if we don't have to import an atmosphere who we probably need. 

[adsii1970]

No, we can't. Simple as that. We do not have the capacity to create:

• A magnetic field to protect the atmosphere we plan to create. The magnetic field surrounding Earth is created by the rapid rotation of our planet's liquid iron-nickle core.
• A rapidly rotating molten iron-nickel core (in spite of the various SyFy Channel movies that say we can). You have to have this to generate a sustainable magnetic core.
• A huge amount of greenhouse gases to not only create an atmosphere similar to Earth, but must sustain the output.

And to support all that, you'd need a near endless supply of energy to continue to produce the artificial atmosphere. And all of this is under the premise that once we create the atmosphere, we can somehow manipulate the weather - which we cannot.

Secondly, how can we say humans have actually manipulated, whether by design or by accident, the atmosphere on earth to the extent that some claim? Their climate models do not take in account solar activity or Earth's own geological/geothermal processes. So the model currently used to say there's genuinely "man-made climate change" is, in my opinion, saying "we got to treat the infection before we can get the splinter out..." One volcano can throw as much CFCs and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (per day) as humankind creates in the same day. There are volcanoes that have been continually erupting (think Mt. Kilauea in Hawaii) since 1983.

[ModZero]

12 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Their climate models do not take in account solar activity or Earth's own geological/geothermal processes.

You just made everyone here very, very tired. Also, that's a lie.

12 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

One volcano can throw as much CFCs and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (per day) as humankind creates in the same day.

Read this, this, this and sin no more.

EDIT: and, as I said before: haha, politics-free discussion of science. Lol, not gonna happen.

Edited June 13, 2017 by ModZero

[Green Baron]

 

10 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Secondly, how can we say humans have actually manipulated, whether by design or by accident, the atmosphere on earth to the extent that some claim? Their climate models do not take in account solar activity or Earth's own geological/geothermal processes. So the model currently used to say there's genuinely "man-made climate change" is, in my opinion, saying "we got to treat the infection before we can get the splinter out..." One volcano can throw as much CFCs and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (per day) as humankind creates in the same day. There are volcanoes that have been continually erupting (think Mt. Kilauea in Hawaii) since 1983.

We ca say so with the help of science. It's measured and published. Climate models do indeed take care of a lot of things from radiation balances over element cycles via sinks and wells and dependencies of a lot of physical and chemical parameters in the different spheres, conveyors and exchange systems. Volcanoes are just a very very small parameter in the models, their different types and appearances are well included.

Need to say this before this gets locked :-)

[kerbiloid]

We can't terraform the Martian gravity. And this makes unimportant most of said above, unless we marsoform the Martian colonists.

No need to wait billion years, as no need to reinvent computer to play ksp. Earth is full of already living creatures. No need to make them from scratch.

Somebody here had mentioned some history about earthworms and North-American soil. Can't find this right now.

 

 

 

 

[adsii1970]

33 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

 

We ca say so with the help of science. It's measured and published. Climate models do indeed take care of a lot of things from radiation balances over element cycles via sinks and wells and dependencies of a lot of physical and chemical parameters in the different spheres, conveyors and exchange systems. Volcanoes are just a very very small parameter in the models, their different types and appearances are well included.

Need to say this before this gets locked :-)

Published does not always equal correct. If we used that as the basis of "science" then the Earth is flat, space is full of ether, and the Sun orbits around the Earth. All of these scientific "facts" were published and measured in their time. Anyone who blindly trusts science is doing science a great disservice. Science and "facts" must be approached with skepticism.

Spoiler

And then there's this from the United Nation's own website:
http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

 

43 minutes ago, ModZero said:

You just made everyone here very, very tired. Also, that's a lie.

Read this, this, this and sin no more.

EDIT: and, as I said before: haha, politics-free discussion of science. Lol, not gonna happen.

Ok, and then there's this from the U.N. itself -

http://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally

and this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#42dcabcd3f9f

and this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/

 

Is climate change happening? Yes, it is. But humankind is not the main reason; there are way too many variables out there to say that mankind is the ONE factor alone.

I simply have a difference of opinion as to the cause of climate change. Here's what I think the REAL cause of climate change is:

http://inhabitat.com/chile-earthquake-may-have-shifted-earths-axis-shortened-days/

http://www.enn.com/energy/article/42468

http://earthsky.org/earth/march-11-japan-earthquake-powerful-enough-to-shift-earths-axis

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html