New Mars Forums

Well a certain amount of ozone and methane have to be able to coexist in the atmosphere since both are present in our own. Instead of converting the oxygen into ozone, one could just produce methane and oxygen. The oxygen would likely be in very small amounts, but it would increase the partial pressure and could help pave the way for aerobic plants and bacteria.

The methane was the primary benefit of the strategy which I was suggesting, ozone would have been a nice bonus, but isn't critical. PFCs hold promise, but I still have doubts as to the efficiancy of producing them on Mars. They are better green house gases, but it make take a disproportionately greater amount of energy and time to manufacture them.

It has been a while since chemistry for me, but I was considering what could be manufacture on Mars in the way of greehouse gases. It occured to me that there must be some way to combine 2 H2O with CO2 and produce CH4+O3+O yes I realize that the oxygen will form into O2.

So we can get methane, ozone and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water. Now that would require a great deal of power. A nuclear reactor near a pole could easily be supplied with the water for the process and as coolant.

It would seem to be the best strategy for producing greenhouse gases and an ozone layer with existing technology.

Is this feasible, and what do you think?

In the 20th century on Earth, you were 4 times as likely to be killed by your own government, than by a foreign invader. In truth people have always been at great risk from their own government, and a less real but more propogandized view that it is other governments that pose a threat.

Having one martian government might cut down on war, but what about genocide or tyranny? Especially with a crowd of scientists in charge. Who is going to put a limit on government, so we do end up with things like eugenics programs?

Hey SpaceNut, I'm a Granite Stater too. "Live Free or Die"

What if we're the first technological civilization in the Milky Way? Our sun is middle aged, and it took all that time for an intelligent civilization to rise here. Perhaps intelligent life, at least in the sense of technology using intelligence is quite uncommon.

Some civilizations could have existed in the galaxy a billion years ago, but their signals wouldn't still remain in our galaxy. Plus a civilization located directly across the galaxy would probably not send signals which would cross the galaxy uninterupted. There are so many sources of interference.

Maybe we're alone for now in the Milky Way, but I don't believe that has always been so, and there may be a civilization out there which just discovered radio technology.

A tyranny of the majority is no better than a tyranny of the minority. The idea that democracy is synonymous with freedom is absurd, because true democracy is by defenition an unlimited government. Are you saying that a minority which rebels against an oppressive majority is in the wrong simply by virtue of their number?

A democracy can vote to strip the minority of their religious freedom, their freedom of expression, their right to property, and anything else, yet you equate the majority with a moral absolute.

What you need is a government which is limited in scope. Even a small direct democracy of 100-200 people can have a charter or constitution, which limits the power of the majority.

Frankly, I think that Democracy is at the root of all most contempory authoritariansm. National Socialism and Bolshevism are quick to claim that their platform is the will of the people, and that it is of course in the interests of the majority.  Government should be representative, either democratic or republican, but it should also be limited in scope. In the end most decisions should be left to the individual, and government should primarily be employed only to prevent one individual from infringing on the equal rights and freedoms of another.

The idea that every apect of our lives is subject to legislation is far from correct, as is the idea that government actually solves many problems.

Frankly, in the early stages there will be little incentive for war. Colonists will have little in the way of extra resources, and probably won't even be able to reach another colony, let alone engage them.

If you are looking at government as a way to avoid war, then I think that you are looking in the wrong place. Almost every war in human history has been waged by a government. By putting one government in place and hoping that the only war is that of an insurgency doesn't seem an improvement. Civil Wars and insurgencies are often some of the bloodiest conflicts.

Human beings really aren't as warlike as some people think. The main reason we fight on Earth is because of
1) Limited resources
2) Differences in Belief
3) Manipulation by those who stand to gain by our fighting

Frankly Martians will have to focus on their survival and making environmental improvements, possibly for generations, before can think about diversions, especially those as costly as war.

We're all children of sci-fi media, but when you analysis the costs and benefits to Martian colonists, there is little to gain and much to lose by going to war. I doubt we'll see a martial Mars.

The foot soldier is becoming less relevant on the modern battlefield. Especially with the conditions present on a Red Mars, you would see far more technologically driven conflicts. A handful of missles launched at a dome would probably prove enough to cause depressurization, and everyone in that enclosure would die. If we do someday see a war on Mars, it will likely be fought by unmanned drones, and communications/electronic jamming. An EMP near a colony could easily shut down life support and communications.

Those who engage in war on Mars will likely decimate themselves, which is why war won't be a major problem in the early stages. If Mars reaches and Earth like environment, then you may see levels of conflict that resemble those on Earth.

Actually if you look at the numbers from the last century. You are 4 times as likely to die by the hand of your own government than by that of a foreign agressor. That figure reflects the folly of rallying behind a government out of a desire for security.

I'm not opposed to a constabulary force and judiciary to address crimes of force and fraud. Of course it is likely that even without such a judiciary, a type of common law would prevail. Common law garuntees the right to trial by jury, not vigilante justice. This is the system that was used in England for centuries, and for quite some time in the US until it was replaced with statutory law.

Government justice is not necessarily any more efficient at punishing the right person either. Have you followed the cases where a full 10% of a state's death row has been released in the light of DNA exoneration? It's OK for the state to execute on mere suspicion, let's be clear there is reasonable doubt in most cases and the jury just leans one way or the other, but if an individual did it then that would be worse?

Either way George Martin is dead, and people who disagree with the verdict are probably going to have it out for those who passed judgement, and whether by brute violence or trumped up charges, the Martins will have it out for the Clayton's. That is unless they think that George did it, in which case there is a good chance that guy was a likely candidate.

People in a settlement could voluntarily accept the community's system of justice or arbitration, and if they don't like it, they'll choose to setle in a colony that better matches their desires. People would sign a contract that says they will operate within the constraints of the legal system, whatever it is, and that they will settle their greivances within those boundarys, and be subject to prosecution under a prescribed burden or proof, and penalties. Gradually people would choose the systems that are most beneficial, and these systems will be chosen, not forced.

When did I advocate tight borders in a Martian society? I don't like global governments, but I don't like trade barriers either. Free trade and free movement, but between states that set local regulations and handle the defense of their citizens from violent criminals, theives, fraudlent practices, and the initiation of war by other colonies.

Thanks for the welcome fractal.

I'm a little new to the quantitative side of the terraforming debate. Do you have any idea, how many bodies of such composition are believed/known to exist?

It seems to me harvesting volatiles from small cosmic bodies would be a realistic and relatively expedient way to import volatiles. Of course the best course would probably be to start with greenhouse gases like Ammonia and Methane, to see if the caps really contain the amounts of CO2 that some seem to think. My guess is that there won't be anywhere near a bar's worth of CO2 in the caps, but of course this is good for trying to create a biosphere, because there should be room to introduce Nitrogen and other gas volatile s, without creating an overpressured atmosphere.

It seems like several asteroids of the right composition and size could put us on the relative fast track to a warmer Mars.

I haven't thought extensively about the outer solar system, but how much solid mass in terms of frozen C02,N, or H would be required to create 1bar of pressure on Mars?
If a number of comets 100m-1km in diameter could be introduced to Mars, without  an impact that obscures the surface, how many would it take?

If the caps and regolith don't posses enough gas, and clearly there isn't enough Nitrogen, I think impacts are the most efficient way to import volatiles. Deep Impact showed that we can land a craft on a similar body.

No nation has a claim to Mars as expressed by treaty. The governments of Earth have already disavowed the power to claim celestial bodies. There are three major goals that I think supporters of space exploration/colinization have.

1. Help ensure the survival of the Human species in the event of catastrophe on Earth.

2. Gain and profit from the vast resources available in space.

3. Allow humanity on Earth to benefit from discoveries and research in space.

I don't think many people, or nations are really looking for direct political control over Mars. In reality governments will eventually take root on Mars of their own accord. I'm not a fan of governments in general, nor the specter of centralized world states.

Frankly, I think that government funded space travel won't get us into space or into the planetary engineering business. I believe that private enterprises will do a far faster, cheaper, and more incentive driven job as technology advances.