Should we terraform Mars?

[SpaceCowboy]

I think that it would be a very interesting thing to do.

 

[Bj]

First off, I don't think Earth will become inhabitable, and on the same note, I don't think we should have scientists living on Mars/Moon just because of the questionable demise of Earth.

However, I think we should also have humans living on the Moon and sometime in the future, Mars just for scientific studies. Just like we have man on the ISS for years now.

 

[Andy44]

If Earth is becoming overpopulated, why aren't we colonizing Antarctica? It's an entire continent covered in water and has breathable air, and it's only a plane ride away. Antarctica is orders of magnitude easier to colonize than Mars, and yet there is no self-sustaining human population there. When Antarctica starts becoming overpopulated, then you can have a serious discussion of Mars as a solution to too many people. And Antarctica's not the only wide-open expanse of unpopulated land on Earth. This planet can support a lot more people than the Malthusian worrywarts believe.

 

[RichWall]

Terra-forming could start roboticly at first. Send some nuke powered atmospheric converters. Plant some primitive life forms that also convert CO2 to O2 etc..Melt some ice...

I think we have some bases at Antarctica already..Research I suppose.:speakcool:

 

[Eagle]

I feel its a little unrealistic to get Mars human breathable anytime in our lifespans. It sure would be nice to have a second world though.

Zero-g life among the various rocks could support trillions of people. The technology for indefinite support without the atmosphere is likely a requirement for multisystem colonization.

 

[Tex]

I'm for it. We could learn a lot from it.

OT: Hey Rich, welcome back man!

 

[pattersoncr]

Let's get there first. Then we can start worrying about what to do with the planet.

 

[RisingFury]

Let's get there first. Then we can start worrying about what to do with the planet.

Exactly.


The biggest thing I'd go for is to take a few of the most resilient bacterial from Earth and send them to Mars, if they survive / go to hibernation to survive.

Why?
We already know Mars is lifeless and can say that with absolute certainty. So what we could do is send life forms that have the highest chances of survival and mutation to adopt to Martian conditions.

We know that there are bacteria very high in our atmosphere, 30, 40 kilometers high. Those are very resilient to low pressure, radiation other damaging factors.


I think it would be a very interesting experiment, but there are a few things to consider and the best way to put it is this:

I say no... We've already ruined one planet, why another one

If any of the bacteria survive and start mutating, that's a thing humans should celebrate. It would prove that life is resilient, can survive in different conditions and can even survive on a planet that it wasn't created on.

Aliens, anyone?

 

[RichWall]

I feel its a little unrealistic to get Mars human breathable anytime in our lifespans. It sure would be nice to have a second world though.

I agree. This will be a multi-generational effort. We have start somewhere.

Fun for the whole family!!

I'm for it. We could learn a lot from it.

OT: Hey Rich, welcome back man!

Thanks, Tex. Glad to be back.

OT: This forum is down right impressive...Thx to you!!!

Let's get there first. Then we can start worrying about what to do with the planet.

I think we have. Even though my memory comes and goes, I think there were the Viking missions back in the 70s. I like Vikings.

Mars Odyssey, Phoenix Mars Lander, and some others.

However, If you are talking about a manned mission, I'm all for it.

Might be good to maintain the Equipment once it's planted.

A couple people per site will do, or maybe a couple, for sanities sake.

The biggest thing I'd go for is to take a few of the most resilient bacterial from Earth and send them to Mars, if they survive / go to hibernation to survive.

Why?
We already know Mars is lifeless and can say that with absolute certainty. So what we could do is send life forms that have the highest chances of survival and mutation to adopt to Martian conditions.

We know that there are bacteria very high in our atmosphere, 30, 40 kilometers high. Those are very resilient to low pressure, radiation other damaging factors.


I think it would be a very interesting experiment, but there are a few things to consider and the best way to put it is this:



If any of the bacteria survive and start mutating, that's a thing humans should celebrate. It would prove that life is resilient, can survive in different conditions and can even survive on a planet that it wasn't created on.

Aliens, anyone?

I like it!

Just remember, It will be fairly warm around those Atmospheric Generators.:beach:

 

[Ghostrider]

Just remember, It will be fairly warm around those Atmospheric Generators.:beach:

And we can't use the pulse rifles there.

 

[JamesG]

If Earth is becoming overpopulated, why aren't we colonizing Antarctica?... When Antarctica starts becoming overpopulated, then you can have a serious discussion of Mars as a solution to too many people.

But Antarctica is still on Earth and thus subject to "The Big One" that threatens human existence.

I agree that we are a long way before using migration as a way of controlling overpopulation is even realistic much less practical.

 

[RichWall]

And we can't use the pulse rifles there.

Just keep them pointed at the beer cans on the rocks.

 

[Andy44]

I think we have some bases at Antarctica already..Research I suppose.

Yes, but those aren't self-sustaining colonies; they are outposts. They cannot support a few scientists without regular supply drops let alone viable gene pool.

But Antarctica is still on Earth and thus subject to "The Big One" that threatens human existence.

I agree with that, but I am arguing that overpopulation is not a logical reason for terraforming Mars, not for a long time to go.

 

[Linguofreak]

You can't terraform Mars. Even if you could heat it up the planet can't retain enough of an atmosphere to make it worth while. Then there is the problem of no magnetic field to protect against radiation.

Mars could retain an atmosphere, once it was established, for millions of years (which is good enough for our purposes, it's just not the billions that would be needed for it to have retained its primordial atmosphere). And *if* we could establish such an atmosphere, we could certainly maintain it for however long we were there. (Though I doubt we would be there long enough for atmospheric decay to matter). The lack of a magnetic field is probably more of a problem.

But however well Mars would hold onto an established atmosphere, the biggest problem would be thickening the atmosphere up in the first place.

I think terraforming runs into a bit of a catch-22. You need a large established population to make terraforming possible and worthwhile, but you need to terraform the planet before it's worthwhile, or even possible, to form a colony with that kind of population.

 

[JamesG]

Mars could retain an atmosphere, once it was established, for millions of years (which is good enough for our purposes, it's just not the billions that would be needed for it to have retained its primordial atmosphere).

Yes, if you could snap your fingers and materialize Earth's atmosphere around Mars it would take millions of years for it dissipate and get swept away by the solar wind. But between that, the water content would instantly flash freeze and fall to the surface. The free oxygen would voraciously react with minerals and chemicals of the surface, or Mars' low gravity would allow it to bounce merrily off into space. Which leaves you with nothing but an inert nitrogen atmosphere with a little CO2 slowly leaking off into the void...

But however well Mars would hold onto an established atmosphere, the biggest problem would be thickening the atmosphere up in the first place.

Can't be done. Even crashing comets full of frozen water, nitrogen, and oxygen won't build up the atmosphere faster than it will slip away. Mars just isn't big enough. Sorry.

Venus actually has more terraforming potential. If you can block something like just 10% of the solar radiation reaching it, the planet would quickly cool down and then water and nitrogen brought in would stick around and it might be possible to seed the planet with organisms that could breatkdown the CO2.

 

[RichWall]

Yes, but those aren't self-sustaining colonies; they are outposts. They cannot support a few scientists without regular supply drops let alone viable gene pool.



I agree with that, but I am arguing that overpopulation is not a logical reason for terraforming Mars, not for a long time to go.

I agree with all the above, but maybe we are confusing terraforming with colonization.

I think terraforming runs into a bit of a catch-22. You need a large established population to make terraforming possible and worthwhile, but you need to terraform the planet before it's worthwhile, or even possible, to form a colony with that kind of population.

I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. With the right equipment we could terraform Mars with less than 500 people permanently based on Mars. And yes, they would have to be continuously supplied.

If so, some may opt for a one way trip, especially if it was with the right mate and plenty of the formentioned supplies.

 

[Linguofreak]

Yes, if you could snap your fingers and materialize Earth's atmosphere around Mars it would take millions of years for it dissipate and get swept away by the solar wind. But between that, the water content would instantly flash freeze and fall to the surface. The free oxygen would voraciously react with minerals and chemicals of the surface, or Mars' low gravity would allow it to bounce merrily off into space. Which leaves you with nothing but an inert nitrogen atmosphere with a little CO2 slowly leaking off into the void...

No, if you magically transported Earth's atmosphere to Mars the water probably would freeze out fairly quickly, but not instantaneously. Some points on the Martian surface reach almost 70 F (around 20 C) during the summer under current conditions, with more atmosphere, you'd probably even get warmer than that.

Nor would the oxygen react or escape immediately. The surface is already covered in metal oxides (mostly iron oxide), so oxygen wouldn't react with any of the minerals there. Now if you're getting the oxygen from breaking up those oxides instead of magically transporting it there, which is fairly likely if your terraforming the place, then you have to find something to do with those metals to prevent the oxygen re-binding to them, but you have time to do that, they will not react "voraciously" (i.e. burn) with oxygen at the temperatures and pressures involved. You'd be dealing more with a slow process of corrosion.

As for oxygen escaping, it's got a heavier molecular weight than nitrongen, so it would escape slower, not faster, than nitrogen. The dominant process for atmospheric loss on any planet is thermal escape: On any given planet at a given temperature a certain percentage of the molecules of any given type of gas are traveling faster than the planet's escape velocity. The lower the molecular weight, the lower the escape velocity, and the higher the temperature, the greater the percentage that's above escape velocity. The higher the percentage, the faster that type of molecule escapes. Mars can easily hold onto a full bar of oxygen and nitrogen over human timescales. It just can't do so over geological timescales.

Can't be done. Even crashing comets full of frozen water, nitrogen, and oxygen won't build up the atmosphere faster than it will slip away. Mars just isn't big enough. Sorry.

You could build it up much faster than it would escape if you had the resources to divert enough comets, deoxidize enough martian soil and somehow sequester the metals away, and melt enough of the polar caps. But it would still take centuries or millenia to complete the project, and in the meantime, it would cost a *lot* of money.

The problem is not that it's not theoretically possible. The problem is that it is impractical to a degree that cannot be described in human words.

Venus actually has more terraforming potential. If you can block something like just 10% of the solar radiation reaching it, the planet would quickly cool down and then water and nitrogen brought in would stick around and it might be possible to seed the planet with organisms that could breatkdown the CO2.

Removing atmosphere from Venus is just as impractical as adding it to Mars. Not impossible, but utterly impractical.