Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

CheckDavid · 2011-11-22 21:03:45

Hey people, I am about to share with you another TED talk.

This time Stephen Petranek lists a speculative lists of ways the human race could be erased from the history of the universe.

The one that got into third place are the threat of Solar Flares.

And guess what is the proposed solution? Yeah, you guessed it.

If you are in a hurry jump to 17:50

Video: http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_petran … eddon.html

Last edited by CheckDavid (2011-11-22 21:06:00)

JoshNH4H · 2011-11-22 23:26:35

I think that the dangers to Earth from not having a second planet available is one of the stronger arguments for terraforming and colonizing Mars. With regards to terraformation, though, I tend to wonder if it's actually worth the cost, given that it's presumably somewhere in the range of billions to trillions of dollars with relatively little return compared to simply doming large areas of the planet as needed.

Terraformer · 2011-11-23 08:57:04

Blasphemy!

In terms of resilience, I consider a planet with a naturally contained atmosphere to be a lot better. You don't need full terraforming to reap most of the benefits - I'm thinking of a Mars with a 2-300mb atmosphere of CO2, which would provide radiation protection, heat the planet, reduce the pressure differential between the domes and the outside (to 0?), allow for plants to be grown outside domes...

Eventually, you end up with a "Hybrid Worldhouse"...

CheckDavid · 2011-11-23 09:00:11

JoshNH4H wrote:

I think that the dangers to Earth from not having a second planet available is one of the stronger arguments for terraforming and colonizing Mars. With regards to terraformation, though, I tend to wonder if it's actually worth the cost, given that it's presumably somewhere in the range of billions to trillions of dollars with relatively little return compared to simply doming large areas of the planet as needed.

Oh!!! So if it is in the range of the Billions, it is cheaper than the war on Iraq lol

So, who wants to weight the benefits between those two?

JoshNH4H · 2011-11-23 10:48:40

I'll be the first to tell you that the war in Iraq was an absolute waste. I think billions is quite optimistic, though. Perhaps billions per year, perhaps below a hundred if you're going on a thousand year time-scale, probably up in the higher hundreds if you want to get it done within your grandchildren's [significantly extended] lifetimes.

JoshNH4H · 2011-11-23 10:50:41

And with regards to the 20-30 kPa (200-300 mb) CO2 atmosphere proposal, that is one that is very often floated around and it certainly does have benefits. I just question the cost-benefit of most forms of planetary engineering given their usually tremendous expense. I think that this might be something that deserves its own thread, actually.

Craigipedia · 2012-01-01 13:48:13

I don't like the argument against terraforming from an issue of costs.... the costs of losing the human race, and losing our entire biosphere potentially, is literally beyond calculation. If the earth gets hit by a rock that sterilizes the surface, or even knocks out 10% or 5% of the biosphere, we will be wishing we had spent $100 trillion terraforming Mars.

Additionally, there is no actual "cost" to terraforming Mars. It will require capital investment, but that capital investment will net a return - creating a habitable planet. Let's say we spend $10 billion annually creating a permanent colony on Mars. After 25 years we've dropped $250 billion (tiny by comparison to the defense budget) sure, but we've also created a permanent self-sustaining colony on another planet.

If, in 25 years, we have hundreds of people living on Mars and an embryonic seed bank of just a fraction of the Earth's biodiversity that colony will eventually terraform Mars from the inside and do it on its own terms at its own pace. For an initial investment of X, you unlock a virtually infinite resource-base. How can we even worry about costs? The initial costs are completely outweighed by the gains.

Finally, terraforming will be a 22nd century problem dealt with using technologies that would be to us almost incomprehensible from magic. It doesn't matter what the cost of creating a space elevator to harvest and grind up asteroids in orbit over Mars is in 2012 dollars... it will be dealt with by people using technology that makes you look like a chimpanzee.

Terraforming Mars will be done by people living 100-200 years into the future, who are descended from the initial colonizers. If you want to talk about the cost problem of colonization that is fine. But talking about the cost of terraforming is simply not useful. You can talk about the applications of terraforming. You can talk about methods and hypothetical scenarios... but costs are meaningless.

Terraformer · 2012-01-01 16:05:38

i disagree. If our descendents have such capabilities that a small group could afford to terraform a planet - if their technology is incomprehensible to us - then their motives and actions are likewise going to be incomprehensible. Why terraform Mars when you can let a few self replicating machines out in the Trojan asteroids and build everyone an artificial planet?

louis · 2012-01-01 19:22:40

JoshNH4H wrote:

I think that the dangers to Earth from not having a second planet available is one of the stronger arguments for terraforming and colonizing Mars. With regards to terraformation, though, I tend to wonder if it's actually worth the cost, given that it's presumably somewhere in the range of billions to trillions of dollars with relatively little return compared to simply doming large areas of the planet as needed.

Yes, in terms of survival of the human race, terraformation is not at all necessary. I tend to think of terraformation as a secondary project after creation of a wide and sophisticated industrial infrastructure, allowing for self-sufficient communities on Mars.

Certainly there is no point beginning 40,000 year terraformation projects, since it's almost certain we'll find a way to cut that back to at least 5,000 years before that project is completed. Only terraformation projects within say 1000 years should be given serious consideration.

Last edited by louis (2012-01-01 19:23:19)

Craigipedia · 2012-01-02 13:47:46

Terraformer wrote:

i disagree. If our descendents have such capabilities that a small group could afford to terraform a planet - if their technology is incomprehensible to us - then their motives and actions are likewise going to be incomprehensible. Why terraform Mars when you can let a few self replicating machines out in the Trojan asteroids and build everyone an artificial planet?

Terraformer I think you are perverting my argument. There are many practical and appreciable applications to terraforming Mars. However, the means of doing it are, as of yet, largely beyond the realm of feasibility (huge solar mirrors, asteroid capture and bombardment, etc). My primary point was that discussing terraforming in terms of <em>costs</em> wasn't useful because the cost factor for 2011 is in no way representative of the cost factor when industrial terraforming ever begins at scale (perhaps 2111). We can easily discuss the costs of colonizing Mars. We can discuss the costs of missions. We can discuss the costs of putting enough biodiversity on Mars that it can act as an Earth Ark, so to speak. What we cannot do is discuss the cost of a technology that is completely alien to us.

Sure, we may just build planets from the asteroid belt one day (though those planets wouldn't resemble our planets at all, given the limitations of material) but in the days that follow we may slip the silvery bonds of physical existence and transfer our collective consciousness into a pan-dimensional astral plane. We may create our own little universe one day with some sort of black hole - white hole machine. just because people in the future will one day accomplish greatness does not mean we should not strive to accomplish lesser greatness on our own terms. I was simply saying that a discussion of costs is irrelevant to the discussion of the project itself. terraforming will be done by people living in a society, and employing a technology, that is likely beyond our comprehension. colonization, on the other hand, may be done by our grandchildren if we are lucky. I'm 24 years old, in my ideal view of the next 50-60 years I can perhaps retire to Mars. We can talk about how much of the 2012 defense budget could be relegated to Mars colonization.... we cannot talk about how much building an orbital mirror with unobtanium fabric will divert funding from necessary public works projects.

Craigipedia · 2012-01-02 13:52:37

Terraformer wrote:

i disagree. If our descendents have such capabilities that a small group could afford to terraform a planet - if their technology is incomprehensible to us - then their motives and actions are likewise going to be incomprehensible. Why terraform Mars when you can let a few self replicating machines out in the Trojan asteroids and build everyone an artificial planet?

additionally, I never said that a "small group" could terraform Mars. however, the civilization that does one day terraform Mars will be descended from the first forerunners who landed on that planet in the middle of the 21st century creating a beach head for larger scale human expansion to another planet. Mars will likely have millions of inhabitants by the time it has enough atmospheric pressure to walk around in shirt sleeves, and unless we invest significant technology (tech which hasn't been conceived or invented yet) to create a biosphere on the planet it will take likely tens of thousands of years for biodiversity to flourish in any way comparable to the Earth.

that is hardly the work of a small group using super robots. that is the progression of a civilization over a centuries-long time scale (in all likelihood)

louis · 2012-01-02 18:10:13

I would think that 10 billion robot vehicles on Mars (trailing long PV panels over maybe hundreds of metres) could each convert 200,000 tonnes of regolith into gas over a period of say 100 years to create a pretty thick atmosphere.

Terraformer · 2012-01-04 04:44:25

Hmmm, lets see. At the end of 100 years, you'd have produced 2e15 tonnes (2 pentillion). The Martian surface area is approx 1.45e14 sq.m (145 trillion). That's 13.8 tonnes per square meter, enough for a surface pressure of 500mb. However, do you realise what an undertaking this would be, and how energy intensive? You're talking about strip mining the surface, planet wide, to a depth of maybe a dozen meters, using perhaps several hundred terawatts at the very least (actually far far much more than this) - expecting someone to build 10 billion robots (nearly 30 years at a rate of a million a day), which will need no repair at all. Granted, you're probably thinking about self-replicating machines, but even so... and you suggest solar power, rather than doing to obvious and strip out trace fissile material and thorium from the feed (and you can then tell the robot horde to plunge into a volcano or thousand when their work is done, creating a local hotspot of magma). This is assuming we can even get mechanical based life to work...

However, if the environment can be made favourable to plants and primitive life, we could possibly engineer lifeforms capable of breaking down Oxides and Carbonates (something capable of reducing Iron would be great, especially if it can lock in up in a kind of glass that it excretes, containing Iron, various oxides of Calcium, Magnesium etc). Bonus points if it produces Ores. But still, finding or making an abundant enough reducing agent (such as Carbon or Hydrogen) would be the hardest part of it (perhaps we can make trees give out hydrogen in their roots?). Certainly, though, persuading a life form to use Iron Oxide as it's source of oxygen would be very useful, given that there's no free oxygen, and if Carbohydrates are used (from plants), give us Iron and CO2, rather than simply taking the O2 back out of the atmosphere. But it's'not something that will be done easily...

louis · 2012-01-04 14:05:17

Terraformer wrote:

Hmmm, lets see. At the end of 100 years, you'd have produced 2e15 tonnes (2 pentillion). The Martian surface area is approx 1.45e14 sq.m (145 trillion). That's 13.8 tonnes per square meter, enough for a surface pressure of 500mb. However, do you realise what an undertaking this would be, and how energy intensive? You're talking about strip mining the surface, planet wide, to a depth of maybe a dozen meters, using perhaps several hundred terawatts at the very least (actually far far much more than this) - expecting someone to build 10 billion robots (nearly 30 years at a rate of a million a day), which will need no repair at all. Granted, you're probably thinking about self-replicating machines, but even so... and you suggest solar power, rather than doing to obvious and strip out trace fissile material and thorium from the feed (and you can then tell the robot horde to plunge into a volcano or thousand when their work is done, creating a local hotspot of magma). This is assuming we can even get mechanical based life to work...
However, if the environment can be made favourable to plants and primitive life, we could possibly engineer lifeforms capable of breaking down Oxides and Carbonates (something capable of reducing Iron would be great, especially if it can lock in up in a kind of glass that it excretes, containing Iron, various oxides of Calcium, Magnesium etc). Bonus points if it produces Ores. But still, finding or making an abundant enough reducing agent (such as Carbon or Hydrogen) would be the hardest part of it (perhaps we can make trees give out hydrogen in their roots?). Certainly, though, persuading a life form to use Iron Oxide as it's source of oxygen would be very useful, given that there's no free oxygen, and if Carbohydrates are used (from plants), give us Iron and CO2, rather than simply taking the O2 back out of the atmosphere. But it's'not something that will be done easily...

I am not saying let's do it, only trying to get some scale on the problem. Well there are getting on for 1 billion cars on Earth. It seems to be something like that is at least within the realm of the possible, if you were pretty much focussed on terraformation. Other approaches could be trialled e.g. lowering the albedo (or is it raising - I forget), to absorb more solar radiation... using factories to procude super greenhouse gases...and as you say, at some stage you will be able to introduce microbes to do a lot of the work.

However, I certainly don't see the need to go down that path. Millions of people in Scandinavia spend several months a year indoors - in their homes,cars and offices. There is no intrinsic problem involved in making Mars an "indoor society" for a few hundred years if necessary.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2011-11-22 21:03:45

Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#2 2011-11-22 23:26:35

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#3 2011-11-23 08:57:04

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#4 2011-11-23 09:00:11

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#5 2011-11-23 10:48:40

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#6 2011-11-23 10:50:41

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#7 2012-01-01 13:48:13

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#8 2012-01-01 16:05:38

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#9 2012-01-01 19:22:40

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#10 2012-01-02 13:47:46

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#11 2012-01-02 13:52:37

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#12 2012-01-02 18:10:13

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#13 2012-01-04 04:44:25

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

#14 2012-01-04 14:05:17

Re: Counting To Armageddon - Start Terraforming Mars NOW

Board footer