Does it really matters?

Mesmer · 2008-03-26 07:01:16

I read that some claim that there is no point in terraforming Mars, because it is only "only temporarily", meaning the atmosphere will only last for a few million years if not contained. If it on the other hand could be created a permanent atmosphere which wold last for the rest of our sun's existence, it would make sense in terraforming the planet.

But even a few thousand years would be enough, not to mention some million years. Ten thousand years ago we were still living in the stone ag, and see how far we have come today.

The day it becomes possible to move to Mars and live in the open under a blue sky, the technology will have come even further. With that as a starting point, one can only imaging how the Martian civilization would look after some thousands years. Humans will have counted millions or maybe even over a billion, have spread all over the planet, built cities and domesticated the environments. Humans would most likely also take a chance on asteriod mining, since the asteroid belt is much closer Mars than earth.

So when or if the day comes when it is getting gradually harder to breath on the planet's surface, our descendants will have tools we can only dream of. Then there are three options; recreate the atmosphere once more, cover the main areas with giant glass domes, roofs and use other ways to protects the life (and making protected channels which makes up a huge network of waterways, just as in the old sci-fi stories), or find another planet.

Well, humans have probably already set out to find new worlds at that point, both within the solar system and beyond it, and maybe also repopulated the earth if the human civilization on this planet for some reason should collapse and never recover, resulting in an extinction of humans still living on this planet or throw them back to the stone age and decrease their number to a tiny fraction of what it is today.
There are a lot of possibilities, and as Robert Zubrin says; we can't stay in the cradle forever.

There is no doubt that an atmosphere, free running water and a human-friendly environment would be many times better than the hostile desert planet Mars is today. It is not enough to get a tiny foothold on it, we need to domesticate it and become one with it. Once that happens, and we and the planet are adapting to each others over the next generations, a very slow and gradually reduction of the atmosphere is nothing that our descandants can't handle.

For the same reason I see no reason why giving an atmophere to the moon would be such a bad idea, unless it would require more work, energy and time than just populate it "the old fashion way" by building gradually larger lunar bases. But the moon still comes in after Mars, which in my opinion is (or should be) humanity's main target.

noosfractal · 2008-03-26 11:35:19

Welcome to New Mars Mesmer! I very much agree with what you've written.

By the way, the full quote is

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but humankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."

by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky

nickname · 2008-03-26 13:28:19

Mesmer,
Welcome...

I guess it all depends on how many Earth like places exist in our Galaxy.
If we find Earth like places are pretty common then spending a very long time turning Mars into an Earthlike place might be a waste of time.

If we guess that we are only a few hundred to a few thousand years from visiting the other earthlike worlds we discover then that would be all the effort and time i think was warranted in Mars.

As soon as it was possible to visit earthlike worlds around other stars then Mars would become a very low priority to try to terra form.

zhar2 · 2008-03-26 15:39:56

IMHO even if we find a earth like planet within 20 light years or so the huge interstellar distances are far to large for humans in the near future to concider colonizing that planet, humans will most likely in the next few centuries try to exploit and settle the solar system till nearlly all available territory and bodies are inhabited or claimed by future polities or groups, and the solar sytem is large enough to accomodate hundred of billions of humans and thousands of polities if not more, when the system is more civilizised and has a better space infrastructure and technology humans might would beging to colonise nearby systems.

Mars being the most earthlike and habitable planet besides earth in the system will be up for grabs and terraformation wil surely be carried out in the next few centuries, but maybe not to a complete extent, humans could modify (cyborgs and/or genetic engineering) them selfs to survive in a partialy terraformed mars.

But on the other hand, terraforming mars may not be neccesary as humans can live in artificial enviroments, for example all a ster needs to be worth colonizing and settling is a asteroid belt and ices, or even a gas giant.

nickname · 2008-03-27 05:14:31

zhar2,

I think Mars is the only possible place to try and terra form.
At some point in the distant future Venus might be possible but not with current technology.

Living anywhere other than Mars beacons the question why?
Sure we could live on asteroids or europa or Titan or a lot of other destinations but why live on any of them?

The moon as a scientific base i think has merit, or as a launch point to Mars.

If we wanted to colonize Mars we could do it now without having to rework the planet so i think that is what we will do.
No length of time will be needed to terra form Mars because we wont try.
We will just terra form the indoors.

zhar2 · 2008-03-27 05:31:18

the reason why might be economic interest, freedom (and this is a big one, why follow rules from earth governments, martian governments or even moon governments when you can take your followers to another moon, asteroid or whetever where you can make your own rules and life as you or your people intended) and becouse with new tech like basic nanotech (more for refining than manofacture) and fabber tech a large industrial base might become obsolete and people could beging the DIY colonization strategy (obviously not right now).

And IMO no place is useless, the moon IMO has more than scientific potential, a new nation or corporate state coould build a sizeable population there mining resources, manufacturing and from transport and comunications to the solar systems, other places like jupiters moons have even better potential as they have reasource rich ices and asteroids plus Callisto, europa and ganimede have subsurfac oceans when genetic engineered life resistant to wherever conditions on those oceans could be seeded to produce food and biomass for local comsuption and export.

nickname · 2008-03-27 09:12:38

zhar2,

Some good reasons to move to other places in the solar system but are they the right reasons for knowledge or capitol return.?

Not to many people moving to the poles of the Earth to make a political statement.
We do some scientific work and have very short expeditions to either pole, but if it cost 1 million dollars per person a day would we even do that?

If those places just had 1 mall on them, you couldn't go outside without special equipment and the outdoor temperature never got above -200c it looses its attractiveness as a place to live.
All places other than Mars in the solar system are that bad or have even worse problems.
Mars is not much better.

Mining on the moon will be to expensive to send anything anywhere other that helium 3 a big if for fusion production on Earth .
Even solid gold found on the moon wouldn't be economical to ship even back to Earth.
Communication stations for Earth would be a difficult prospect for the moon.
The time delay for data and the constant change in Earth Moon position wouldn't make it an ideal natural satellite for communication.
A giant neon (Drink Coke) sign might be economic.

That leaves us with Scientific and knowledge reasons.
A small scientific colony on the Moon makes sense.
A telescope on the moon, launch facilities to Mars and other destinations, fuel facilities are all excellent reasons for a moon colony.

A small colony on Mars excellent insurance against an Earth disaster.
A second Telescope on Mars linked to the Moon telescope would be ideal to look for Earthlike planets directly.

I don't want to sound to negative here, but with everything we do either the return of capitol or the return of knowledge must outweigh the investment.

zhar2 · 2008-03-27 09:55:44

Well lets just agree to disagree

But i would say that the main reason that humans have not moved to the antartic are becouse it has been denominated as a preservation zone and political neutral zone, but otherwise there have been plans to colonize antartica, its not becouse we cant or dont want to but becouse we are not allowed to.

About the mall and outdoors thing, in asteroids or the moon why would you make the colony in a way that you have to go outdoors from building to building if you can build corridors?, i those types of colonies there wouldnt be Outdoors living, all will be indoors and interconnected.

The moon mining problem is due to the lack of infrastructure, but there is a threshold of infratructure and production needed to make the capital return worth it, and that can be achived and thereby making the moon or whetever areteroid economically viable.

The problem is that you are thinking of small colonies, think of larger colonies designed in a less "ethical" (think weyland-yutani corp) manner and designed to use the most of manual labour (stick an inflatable tend on the moon, supplies to make the colony self sustainable and you can even make people with a pickaxe and a cheap protection suit mine the moon without special equipment besides a general life support for the tent and the mass driver facilities, i can draw diagrams if you want), cheap labour may come if you present the mine as a penal colony or hire cheap labour from disadvantaged backgrounds or third world countries.

I mean just think on the production and infrastructure threshold plus on how to reduce production cost to their minumun and you can make any rock in space profitable.

About communication, if colonies with a settlement or economic purpose are to be distributed across the system communication will be needed even if its slower than earth base communications and asteroids and moons will need some sort of relay and will be relays to other colonies.

An example of mining "moon" gold:

With approximations to costs, it wil takes 200,000 dollars to send a human into space in the next few years if not decades, but lets say it may take 400,000 to send a human to the moon.

to send lets say 120 employees to the moon it would take 48,000,000

And with near future costs of sending one kilo into space being 3,000 dollars, and lets say 70 tons of equipment, shelter and life support are needed the cost will be: 190,509,000

if you choose employees from one of the low end african nations it could cost you 300 dollars a year in salaries, in total: 36,000 dollars.

total rough costs: 238,545,000 dollars

1 kilo of 24 carats gold price now is 30,330, it would take about 9 tons of gold to brake even.

Ofcourse this figures may be optimistic but with future advances and better infratructure costs would drop significantly making mining the moon viable and other places in the system.

nickname · 2008-03-27 16:55:49

zhar2,

Unfortunately the world runs on money, conquest of material and political statements to secure the first two.

I wish that was a little different story here on Earth but the bottom line is no one will fund any project if it doesn't look like an easy return.

Things might change in space at some later time when companies have built up the moon and options for tourism start to become economical.
The big (drink Coke sign) might be a start to that sort of buildup on the moon.

If we expect NASA to build up the moon alone then we will probably be disappointed.
Once they have built enough to the day when man walks on Mars, we will have another Moon landing lack of interest and cut in funding since going to Mars will have been done.

After that point i really don't see a good goal for manned flight in space for NASA, no real target to head to that will excite either the general public or politicians.

Same sort of thing with terra forming.
If we don't need to we wont.
If we can't justify the cost to terra form we wont.
If the public isn't interested for the length of time it takes to terra form we wont.
Terra forming will come under the same microscope as any space project, costs, time line, budget, returns, political will, public will, etc etc.

Would that set of rules apply to the Martians? probably not since they will want a world that is a nice place to live.
So Martians are much better people to terra form Mars than Earthlings, they will probably terra form it.

Maybe we need to start talks with Coca Cola now. LOL

zhar2 · 2008-03-27 17:07:50

zhar2,
Unfortunately the world runs on money, conquest of material and political statements to secure the first two.

Thats what i basically said, and that there is a profit opportunity outhere.

obviously nasa wont build up nothing upthere.

But i agree with you on the terraformation, terraforming mars may be a waste of time as we can bild up structures and a viable economic base in mars without it (it may just be a hopefull dream, but lets hope not).

Martians (us humans basically , only indeginous there) might do it out of "civic" pride.

Commodore · 2008-03-27 23:24:37

When discussing human colonization, and ultimately terraforming, I think that on Mars you have to approach it from the exact opposite direction as on Earth. Here, when humans arrived in a new area they had an overabundance or resources, and were only limited by man power. You could make a small investment and the colony would, more or less, take care of itself. On Mars you have to have everything in place first. You can't send a hundred people without sending either all their habs with them, or having someone/thing there building it already.

This will always be the case. So by the time you have enough people to consider terraforming, they literally won't need it. What would they need all that empty space for? The biggest use we have is agriculture, and they will have already developed all new methods for a much smaller footprint. Google the Vertical Farm sometime.

The only real use would be to create a giant Earth park for a new home for any of Earths wildlife that can adapt, and any we can create. A noble goal, but far from a question of survival. And such a pattern will be repeated just about anywhere that isn't Earthlike.

Mesmer · 2008-03-29 21:19:06

Thanks.

Some comments to the posts:

I don't think the humans can afford themsevles to just wait for someone to discover an earthlike planet that is more or less ready for colonisation. The transition from living an "isolated" existence in our solar system to move to a new system would be much smoother if we first had learned how to live on another planet. Not to mention all the valuable experiences a civilization on Mars would give.

Another question is what we should do while we were waiting for the technology to mature enough to bring us to another star. Terraforming Mars wouldn't be stupid. As already mentioned, only be best ideas and technologies will follow the humans to the red planet, where they will improve further. When humans are ready to leave the solar system, once again it will be the best of the best that will be chosen.

Spreading is another factor. Why limit ourself to only one world at the time (althought some have suggested generation ships complex enough would release us from a planetary existence on permanent basis), while we can spread to many more? Asimov wrote the famous three laws of R
robotics:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

One could make similar laws for the human civilization as well; survive, spread, evolve (but without sacrificing the rights of the individual).

And I agree, while we wait, our species could modify itself through genetics. No one will say anything bad about curing harmful mutations in humans, so why not making humans better equipped to handle the society they are living in, as well as the environment (like different gravity)?

In my opinion, the reason why we establish ourself on objects outside earth is irrelevant, as long as doesn't have any negative influences on the final product. Does it matter if the moon is turned into a futuristic Las Vegas for rich people, if it means the will be large and scientific bases there and help to create a self-sustained society there? Especially if the alternative is remaining here on earth.

I don't think we need to worry that cults or terrorists and such will establish their own colonies on other objects in the solar system. Just moving to Mars is a huge task that requires cooperation between countries. It will take forever before small groups will be able to do so on their own, if ever. Even if they did succeed in finding a small moon to live on, so what? They would either survive or vanish. If they survived, they could add knowlegde to the rest of the colonies and the earth. As we have seen from WW2 and SSR and such; when a society become too hostile to its inhabitants, the political systems lives on borrowed time.

The costs of sending humans to the moon or Mars would be greatly reduced if the traffic was restricted between space structures attached to space elevators. From what I have heard, at least it has now become possible in theory. Althought those who travel to Mars will not do it as tourists, but as colonists. And once the population is large enough to become self-sustained, have created their own infrastructure, and is able to grow without the risk of inbreeding, there would actally be no need for travels between the planets, even if they would probably occure anyway. Another way to avoid inbreeding is sending small ships with protected frozen sperm and eggs from healthy donors.

When or if hunans have finally got a foothold on Mars as it is today, they would perhaps not need to terraform it, but they woyld wish to do it. At least if what I assume about the human nature is correct. We may be safe in protected cities, but the idea of being surrounded by a literally deadly vasteland is not comforting. What happens if a disaster occurs and a huge area that protects against the thin Martian atmosphere disappears? Humans will die. An atmosphere would protect us more than one way. And the idea of being able to travel out in nature under a blue sky and feel the sun must be better than just always having some sort of roof over the head. There would probably not be a direct need for outdoor wildlife, forests and nature in general, but if there is a way, it will be done.

nickname · 2008-03-31 05:43:36

Commodore,

My feelings for Mars exactly.
Mars is close enough to Earthlike for us to setup shop, once we do it will expand more like an expanding city than pioneer style of settlement.

Once Mars has a big city on it with everything needed, will a roof over the head matter as long as it has everything?
Putting up a giant dome with a park in it verses waiting 1000s or 10,000s of years to attempt the same thing outdoors seems like a no brainer.

That pattern i think will happen on any place we set up shop.
Although i don't see any other location we can setup shop that people will be happy to live on.

Venus might be the only place we attempt to terra form since we can't setup shop on it until its terra formed.

Mesmer · 2008-03-31 11:28:05

Living inside a giant dome or not, humans of Mars still needs to live off the land. And mining and other operations is much easier and appealing when there is an atmosphere. It is true that the first martians needs to live under a roof, but why not change the planet while the first small cities are expanding? Even the first small population will probably be able to build the first factories releasing super effective greenhouse gases.

Future generations would thank them. It almost seems like there is a mentality among people that if it takes hundreds or thousands of years of doing something, then it isn't worth the effort. And personally, I think 10,000s of years sounds a little long to wait. It would probably take much lesser time than that, even if it is only one way to find out. And who doesn't like the idea of a green new land stretching out in the horizon in front of you? Well, maybe some fanatics who think Mars, the moon and other dead worlds are "sacred" and should remain as they are, but luckily it is not up to them what should happen with the future of the human species.

nickname · 2008-04-01 05:26:07

Mesmer,

I think it makes lots of sense for the colonists on Mars to start reworking the atmosphere to make it a friendlier place to live.
Warming and making a thicker atmosphere are great goals on Mars.
It would be nice if colonists can just grab an oxygen mask and head outdoors with low enough background radiation levels to be safe.

Going from a warm thicker atmosphere to plants living on the surface is a goal for maybe many 10s of thousands of years though.

The real sticking point to terra forming Mars is the lack of buffer gas to allow C02 and 02 to be life friendly quantity and keep Mars warm.
Going to get 40% of nitrogen at whatever Mars total atmosphere is from Titan or other sources is going to take a very long time.

Mars has some pretty serious issues with light quantity Vs C02 quantity Vs life zone quantity of gasses Vs bar pressure Vs Temperature Vs super greenhouse gases.

Long math and no good answer without nitrogen import.

A warm thick Mars atmosphere as long as we don't worry to much about it being almost all C02 is very realistic though.

Mesmer · 2008-04-01 20:50:10

In other words, it is the low levels of available nitrogen which is the major obstacle in the scenario?

With today's technology, it is for the moment difficult to do something baout it. But once there is a settlement on Mars, brainpower will be used to solve problems and to see if all that is required is present. If not, ammonia could be brought to the planet from the outside:

http://www.aubreyrhea.com/bookbag/csi655/index.htm

"Importation of ammonia rich objects:

Another greenhouse gas is ammonia (NH3). This gas, along with methane (CH4), is less powerful than halocarbons but more powerful than carbon dioxide. Ammonia rich asteroids could be diverted from the outer solar system towards the Martian atmosphere. This would actually be easier than diverting an asteroid from the Main Belt within the solar system, because the father away an object is from the sun, the slower its orbit. Therefore the velocity change needed to distort that orbit smaller, and the gravity from other planets in the solar system can assist in deflecting the velocity as well.

For this to be done, nuclear thermal rocket engines would have to be somehow attached to asteroids from the outer solar system. The rockets would move the asteroids at about 4 kilometers per second, for a period of about 10 years, before the rockets would shut off and allow the 10-billion-ton asteroids to glide, unpowered, toward Mars. If it is possible to smash an asteroid of such enormous size into Mars, the energy of one impact would be enough to melt about a trillion tons of water. That is enough water to form a lake, with a depth of one meter, that could cover an area larger than the state of Connecticut. Enough ammonia would be released to raise the Martian temperature by 3° C and to form a shield against UV radiation."

It should be possible to use different methods at once to find the best combination. I must admit I havn't read the link I posted myself yet, except the part I posted, simply because I found it right now. But it looks interesting.

And then we have the surface chemistry on the planet:

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_mo … 60223.html

"Martian dust could be even worse. It is not only a mechanical irritant but also perhaps a chemical poison. Mars is red because its surface consists largely of iron oxide and oxides of other minerals. Some scientists suspect that the dusty soil on Mars may be such a strong oxidizer that it will burn any organic compound, such as plastics, rubber, or human skin, as viciously as undiluted lye or laundry bleach.

"If you get Martian soil on your skin, it will leave burn marks," says University of Colorado engineering professor Stein Sture, who studies granular materials such as lunar and Martian dirt for NASA. Because no soil samples have ever been returned from Mars, "we do not know for sure how strong it is, but it could be pretty vicious," says Sture.

Moreover, according to data from the Pathfinder mission, Martian dust may also contain trace amounts of toxic metals, including arsenic and hexavalent chromium--a carcinogenic toxic waste. That was a surprising finding presented in a 2002 National Research Council report called "Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface."

The dust challenge would be especially acute during the windstorms that occasionally envelop Mars from pole to pole. Dust whips through the air, scouring every exposed surface and sifting into every crevice. There would be no place to hide."

This is another reason why at least some form of terraforming would be a must. A rise in tempeature and chemical reactions with the dust which is everywhere would change it to something less harmful. Release of oxygen and free water covering the surface would be a good start, and adding of genetically changed microorganisms.

nickname · 2008-04-02 06:25:26

Mesmer,

If we were to keep the final Mars atmosphere bar pressure at no higher than 150 mb we might just be able to scavenge enough nitrogen from Mars itself to be the 40% of that total.
30 mb of N2 is very probable existing on Mars, 60mb N2 possible but a high limit for sure.

150 mb with 5% C02 55% 02 and 40% N2 will work for plants.
Insects and some animal life should be able to adapt to that, but large animals i think would have long term trouble with pressure that low.

Anything beyond 150mb and i think we are stuck with buffer gas import.
Without lots of super greenhouse gas 150mb Mars with life friendly gas totals won't stay warm.

I personally think about 500 mb total would be ideal for Mars.
Everything would adapt to that, even us humans.
The Nitrogen import penalty is pretty high and long term but Mars has the time and Titan isn't going anywhere.

Your idea of importing ammonia and methane from asteroids works well to get another buffer gas that is also a greenhouse gas, you also get an import of water as a bonus.
Time scales again are a problem for asteroid import, but on a warm Mars i don't think time scales would be a big issue.
The bigger trouble with asteroid import is that the first one arrives long after the colony has started to grow, then it becomes an issue of dumping them into the atmosphere above the colonists.

Titan is an ideal place to get both methane, nitrogen and even the fuel to power it all.
Low escape velocities, abundance of gas and liquids needed for Mars make it a good semi close place .
We could even set up robot factories on Titan to automate the process of moving what we need to Mars.
Adding just gas and liquid to Mars avoids the giant thumps asteroids would make so it could be a long term safe import.

If i was going to alter Mars this is what i would do.

1. Send settlers to Mars and let them expand a city and population as they see fit.
2. Warm Mars with super greenhouse gasses made on Mars.
3. Seed the ponds and Lakes with water based life on the now warmer but still toxic to land life Mars.
4. Imports of Nitrogen and methane sent from Titans robot factories sent weekly until Mars is up to whatever total we choose.
5. Convert water to Oxygen allowed to escape into the atmosphere and hydrogen used as fuel.
6. Fiddle with the balance for the next 50,000 years with small asteroids more imports and mining.

Terraformer · 2008-04-05 06:19:23

Mars will probably get terraformed out of pride. My random guess.

JoshNH4H · 2008-04-05 08:54:09

I think it will be paraterrraformed by coincedince, and the need of people to spread out

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-03-26 07:01:16

Re: Does it really matters?

#2 2008-03-26 11:35:19

Re: Does it really matters?

#3 2008-03-26 13:28:19

Re: Does it really matters?

#4 2008-03-26 15:39:56

Re: Does it really matters?

#5 2008-03-27 05:14:31

Re: Does it really matters?

#6 2008-03-27 05:31:18

Re: Does it really matters?

#7 2008-03-27 09:12:38

Re: Does it really matters?

#8 2008-03-27 09:55:44

Re: Does it really matters?

#9 2008-03-27 16:55:49

Re: Does it really matters?

#10 2008-03-27 17:07:50

Re: Does it really matters?

#11 2008-03-27 23:24:37

Re: Does it really matters?

#12 2008-03-29 21:19:06

Re: Does it really matters?

#13 2008-03-31 05:43:36

Re: Does it really matters?

#14 2008-03-31 11:28:05

Re: Does it really matters?

#15 2008-04-01 05:26:07

Re: Does it really matters?

#16 2008-04-01 20:50:10

Re: Does it really matters?

#17 2008-04-02 06:25:26

Re: Does it really matters?

#18 2008-04-05 06:19:23

Re: Does it really matters?

#19 2008-04-05 08:54:09

Re: Does it really matters?

Board footer