Terraforming Generalized

karov · 2015-06-10 07:21:02

"terraforming", "to terraform" - production of (about) 1G surface flooded under (about) 1 Bar (breathable) atmosphere
---
is that OK?

louis · 2015-06-10 14:45:41

karov wrote:

"terraforming", "to terraform" - production of (about) 1G surface flooded under (about) 1 Bar (breathable) atmosphere
---
is that OK?

I wouldn't say so. I think it would be to produce, through human action, an earth-like planet (not a facsimile). So - a planet in an earth like temperature range, with substantial surface water and with sufficient oxygen/density in the atmosphere to allow humans to breathe without artificial equipment.

I think the assumption is that 1/3 gravity will be sufficient for the colonists (maybe with weighted suits).

Last edited by louis (2015-06-11 10:11:03)

karov · 2015-06-11 08:51:12

louis wrote:

karov wrote:
"terraforming", "to terraform" - production of (about) 1G surface flooded under (about) 1 Bar (breathable) atmosphere
---
is that OK?
I wouldn't say so. I think it would be to produce, through human action, an earth-like planet (not a facsimile). So - a planet in an earth like temperature age, with substantial surface water and with sufficient oxygen/density in the atmosphere to allow humans to breathe without artificial equipment.
I think the assumption is that 1/3 gravity will be sufficient for the colonists (maybe with weighted suits).

Okay.

<< Through a human action >> what about fully automated SRS ( self-replicating system ) (or replicator-constructor) ?

<< earth-like planet >> Planet? Or environment in general? "Terraforming" a meteoroid swarm, host of small bodies ( under planemo threshold of rounding itself under self-gravity) or even pre-stellar nebulae or proplyds ... into artificial planets OR rotating habitats is more like terraforming "empty space". Orrrr ... using fusors ( active stars or stellar remnants ) as supra-mundane habitats underbody is NOT planetary terraforming per se, if we stick to "planetary chauvinism". Imagine the Sun with several million layers with Earth-optimal or supra-optimal trillion Earth-surfaces equivalent of walkable area -- is then the Sun terraformed or not, simply because it is not a "planet"? Or smaller planemos with natural surface gravity of several %s gees - with stuck in them conical habitats ... are they terraformed, or terraform is the inner surface of the embedded rotating habitat?

<< temperature >> - temperature ranges are (baseline) human-centric. Many non-Earth-like environments are livable by humans for different (sufficient) periods.

<< substantial surface water >> -- not necessary AT ALL!

<< athmosphere >> -- OK, human breathable but this gives us a myriad / zillion of gaseous and LIQUID coctails combinations!

<< surface gravity >> -- depends on what is the (long term) healthy (unaided by prosthetics) gees are. "(about) 1G" - I meant the (long term) liveable by unchanged and unaided humans min. and max. - 0.3 to 3G ??

Also:: with all factors combined - atmosphere, gravity, temperature, etc. etc. in fact most if not all of EARTH itself is not human's habitable. We are aided by tech to survive even in our urbanized / homes space - clothes, glasses, shoes, heating, aircons, walking sticks ...

So human-habitable would have ( similar to the philosophy of http://www.plantlab.nl/ for plants - modify the environment to fit best the specific species, but not the vice versa - modify the organism to be tailored to the environment - which is the easier and most robust approach ) the outlook of REALLY VAST combinatorial space of all possible combinations of environment factors / specs /, like a mountain which slopes provide for nearly infinite number of human-habitable environments and a single peak of optimality amidst an infinite flat fields of deadliness. Perhaps slightly individual.

This will give us an "one look up table" tool to review, weight, assess environs vs optimality and modication-ness and aided-ness of humans.:

0.2 Gees, -100 Celsius, 90 mB partial oxygen, 5 Bars OR 2.1 gees, +50 Celsius, 250mB O2, 0.5 Bars ... medium is deadly for naked human in minutes, but slightly aided with 1 000 000 BC level of technology is OK.

Each environment thus will have ADDRESS in the massive multi-dimensional manifold of all possible spaces.
Address for naked, unmodified, un-aided human or for ... other variations. ...

louis · 2015-06-11 10:30:02

It's true that much of Earth is not really human-habitable. But I think terraforming as generally understood does mean creating human-friendly earth-like planets (or minor planets if you prefer). No doubt the term could be extended to clusters of asteroids.

I accept surface water is not an essential but it is a by-product of creating a human-friendly temperature zone over much of the target-planet, since ice melts or steam condenses in that range. Also, terraforming is not just about creating a functional habitat - it is also about creating a beautiful home, or if you prefer one that works well with our individual and mass psyhcology. Surface water also has great utility in allowing heavy goods, particular raw materials to be moved long distances around a planet and kind provide hydro-energy, otherwise not available.

Transhumanising of people may make the habitable range greater e.g. giving people artificial gills would make huge parts of our planet - in seas, lakes and rivers habitable.

However, we start where we are. Mars is "doable" - it can be made a lot more Earth-like with existing technologies e.g. nuclear reactors to heat the regolith and increase the gases, particular oxygen, in the environment or by spreading black ash over the poles to increase infrared absorption.

karov wrote:

louis wrote:
karov wrote:
"terraforming", "to terraform" - production of (about) 1G surface flooded under (about) 1 Bar (breathable) atmosphere
---
is that OK?
I wouldn't say so. I think it would be to produce, through human action, an earth-like planet (not a facsimile). So - a planet in an earth like temperature age, with substantial surface water and with sufficient oxygen/density in the atmosphere to allow humans to breathe without artificial equipment.
I think the assumption is that 1/3 gravity will be sufficient for the colonists (maybe with weighted suits).
Okay.
<< Through a human action >> what about fully automated SRS ( self-replicating system ) (or replicator-constructor) ?
<< earth-like planet >> Planet? Or environment in general? "Terraforming" a meteoroid swarm, host of small bodies ( under planemo threshold of rounding itself under self-gravity) or even pre-stellar nebulae or proplyds ... into artificial planets OR rotating habitats is more like terraforming "empty space". Orrrr ... using fusors ( active stars or stellar remnants ) as supra-mundane habitats underbody is NOT planetary terraforming per se, if we stick to "planetary chauvinism". Imagine the Sun with several million layers with Earth-optimal or supra-optimal trillion Earth-surfaces equivalent of walkable area -- is then the Sun terraformed or not, simply because it is not a "planet"? Or smaller planemos with natural surface gravity of several %s gees - with stuck in them conical habitats ... are they terraformed, or terraform is the inner surface of the embedded rotating habitat?
<< temperature >> - temperature ranges are (baseline) human-centric. Many non-Earth-like environments are livable by humans for different (sufficient) periods.
<< substantial surface water >> -- not necessary AT ALL!
<< athmosphere >> -- OK, human breathable but this gives us a myriad / zillion of gaseous and LIQUID coctails combinations!
<< surface gravity >> -- depends on what is the (long term) healthy (unaided by prosthetics) gees are. "(about) 1G" - I meant the (long term) liveable by unchanged and unaided humans min. and max. - 0.3 to 3G ??
Also:: with all factors combined - atmosphere, gravity, temperature, etc. etc. in fact most if not all of EARTH itself is not human's habitable. We are aided by tech to survive even in our urbanized / homes space - clothes, glasses, shoes, heating, aircons, walking sticks ...
So human-habitable would have ( similar to the philosophy of http://www.plantlab.nl/ for plants - modify the environment to fit best the specific species, but not the vice versa - modify the organism to be tailored to the environment - which is the easier and most robust approach ) the outlook of REALLY VAST combinatorial space of all possible combinations of environment factors / specs /, like a mountain which slopes provide for nearly infinite number of human-habitable environments and a single peak of optimality amidst an infinite flat fields of deadliness. Perhaps slightly individual.
This will give us an "one look up table" tool to review, weight, assess environs vs optimality and modication-ness and aided-ness of humans.:
0.2 Gees, -100 Celsius, 90 mB partial oxygen, 5 Bars OR 2.1 gees, +50 Celsius, 250mB O2, 0.5 Bars ... medium is deadly for naked human in minutes, but slightly aided with 1 000 000 BC level of technology is OK.
Each environment thus will have ADDRESS in the massive multi-dimensional manifold of all possible spaces.
Address for naked, unmodified, un-aided human or for ... other variations. ...

Spaniard · 2015-06-11 14:26:02

I think that Terraforming is to build a environment that when completely built is stable or near stable without extra efforts (for example, enough to exists by thousand of years without new human intervention) that allow a human and/or other Earth macroscopical life forms to live and thrive without need of assisted technologies (so, they can breath, radiation is below danger levels and solar light and day is tolerable).

If the enviroment is not stable and technology is always required to exists we are on the paraterraforming domain. For example, if Venus require and permanent soleta to be "terraformed", then Venus is partially paraterraformed and fully terraforming is never achieved.
Perhaps neither Mars and Venus couldn't be completely terraformed in the sense of be completely selfsustained without further human intervention. Mars is the most promising because with the correct changes, atmosphere could be stable by thousand of years. Solar is enough, and with enough thick atmosphere, temperature and radiation shielding should be ok.

Venus has a bad day duration and change rotation of Venus requires an enormous energy far beyond current technology.
So Venus would require some tricks like mirrors that move Venus outside full terraforming.

louis · 2015-06-11 19:54:40

I certainly agree that Mars is by far the best candidate to hand!

Spaniard wrote:

I think that Terraforming is to build a environment that when completely built is stable or near stable without extra efforts (for example, enough to exists by thousand of years without new human intervention) that allow a human and/or other Earth macroscopical life forms to live and thrive without need of assisted technologies (so, they can breath, radiation is below danger levels and solar light and day is tolerable).
If the enviroment is not stable and technology is always required to exists we are on the paraterraforming domain. For example, if Venus require and permanent soleta to be "terraformed", then Venus is partially paraterraformed and fully terraforming is never achieved.
Perhaps neither Mars and Venus couldn't be completely terraformed in the sense of be completely selfsustained without further human intervention. Mars is the most promising because with the correct changes, atmosphere could be stable by thousand of years. Solar is enough, and with enough thick atmosphere, temperature and radiation shielding should be ok.
Venus has a bad day duration and change rotation of Venus requires an enormous energy far beyond current technology.
So Venus would require some tricks like mirrors that move Venus outside full terraforming.

RobertDyck · 2015-06-12 00:36:00

Spaniard wrote:

Venus has a bad day duration and change rotation of Venus requires an enormous energy far beyond current technology.
So Venus would require some tricks like mirrors that move Venus outside full terraforming.

Mars is the easiest, but Venus has potential. Mars is cold, Venus is hot. Mars has practically the same length of day and same axial tilt as Earth, but lower air pressure and only 38% gravity. Venus has different length of day, but higher air pressure, 90% gravity, and 90% surface area. And Venus atmosphere has 6 times the mass of nitrogen as Earth's atmosphere. Once an active biosphere is formed with forests, etc., then expect nitrogen to equal Earth. But Venus has all the nitrogen we need, Mars does not. Unless we find nitrate deposits in Mars soil, it's sadly lacking nitrogen. So lots of potential.

Mars can be terraformed by releasing greenhouse gasses to warm it. Keeping that atmosphere indefinitely may require an artificial magnetosphere, but even without the atmosphere would last hundreds of thousands of years. Simply warming Mars would release enough dry ice to form an atmosphere roughly 30% the pressure of Earth; enough to walk outdoors without a pressure suit. It would still be a CO2 atmosphere, so you would still need an oxygen mask, but that's a lot safer and more comfortable than a spacesuit. And once Mars is warmed to melt water ice, so rain falls, then plants will grow. It will take centuries to convert that CO2 atmosphere into a breathable oxygen atmosphere, but will eventually. But the great advantage to Mars is you can colonize now, terraform later.

Venus has greater potential, but more difficult. I have argued to terraform with genetically engineered single cell organisms. So Mars can be terraformed with chemical/mechanical means, Venus with biological technology. Mars is cold, Venus is hot. But the catch with Venus is you have to paraterraform before you can colonize. You will have to live with the different length of day. Deciduous trees on Venus, that grow during the 24/7 sunlight for 58.375 Earth days, then dormant for the same duration of night? That's one hell of a growing season. Plants adapt to all sorts of conditions on Earth, they could adapt to that. Energy from sunlight would be controlled by clouds, rather than mirrors or soletta.

Data from the Kepler space telescope has revealed more different kinds of planets than fiction could concoct. Mars and Venus are more Earth-like than most planets out there. If we can't adapt to the difference of our neighbours (eg: length of day), then we're screwed.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-06-12 06:31:24)

Spaniard · 2015-06-12 01:47:54

I will extend my own definition from "allow human and/or other Earth macroscopical life forms to live" to only "macroscopical life forms to live".

We could considere the possibility of alternative non actual human compatible biospheres. For example, we know that some moons has an ocean or enough ice to allow a ocean biosphere with some terraforming like changes. Even if that biosphere don't exist, we could add the changes to build not a replica of Earth but a new kind of living thriving world like a huge ocean full of life forms including new created by engineering. Perhaps including new branches of humankind compatible is this alternative biospheres or new intelligent species created by us based on ourselves.

We don't need to transform every world in the same replica of Earth. Instead, we have the chance to build a biodiversity only using the known life forms as a template not as a goal to replicate. Perhaps, in a far future, we found new life forms and we could spread this new forms too.

I see humankind has the chance to be the gardeners of the galaxy. And terraforming is a basic tool to do it.

karov · 2015-06-13 05:49:36

At the end "terraforming" is all and only about creation of LAND.

Even here, even now, even in the deepest chasms of time. Like boats/ships, bridges/tunnels, multi-story buildings, polders/terraces ...

LAND in sense of SURFACE where humans can do all human things.: to walk/sit/lie/run/jump ... to grow/recreate. It is a surface which is flooded over with atmosphere, which has tolerable temperature range/s, which is long term and tolerably healthy for breathing... SURFACE where the full human life-cycle can take place.

louis wrote:

It's true that much of Earth is not really human-habitable.

Yes, indeed "how much" has strict, precise quantitative answer. It is almost none for Earth. None for most if not all other environs we know... We build homes, produce shelters, we wear clothes - almost ubiquitous human trait except in the most equatorial zones. We build life-support supply lines - bringing in towards the human organisms the life essentials - conditioned air, food, water, artifacts ... The whole human civilization is centered indeed onto solving the transport problem of certain organisms embedded in and environment from which the necessities/wealths to be sourced / produced / brought in and illths sequestered/ removed / destroyed / carried off. The Earth as natural environment gives this "for free", but in very very excessive way. It packs 10exp27s of kg.s of mass in tiny volume in order to create even tinier surface area of land. It uses millions of times more water to create unstable and ssub-optimal "air-conditioning" over minor part of the partial land surface outta all surface...

louis wrote:

But I think terraforming as generally understood does mean creating human-friendly earth-like planets (or minor planets if you prefer). No doubt the term could be extended to clusters of asteroids.

sticking to planets gives very little room for available "topospheres" onto which land to be built. Narrow intersection between denssities and masses from the universally abundant and available chemical elements. OK, yes, planets ARE abundant and we have 1G curvatures / iso-gravities with thousands and thousands per each of the more then trillion Milky way's suns alone. In inner SolSys we have 5 such within light minutes radius - Venus, the Earth, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. 80% of these require total overhaul or outright building from scratch of LAND at the 1G 4D boundary.

If the term "terraforming" is extended to "clusters of asteroids", "stars" etc. exotic underbodies and rotating topologies then paradoxically:
- turning most of the Main asteroid belt (except the biggest bodies) or the bulk of exported Venusian atmosphere ... into hundreds of Bishop rings, millions of bubble-worlds, a topopolis or topopoli ... will give us many times the Earth surface (indeed millions of times the Earth surface in terms of the best of the best Earth surface spots of LAND repeated) - with specs = the optimal for human habitation
VS.
One "terraformed" Mars which forever will remain sub-optimal.

Perhaps "how much" terraformed a place is must be indexed on the multi-dimensional combinatorial map of habitability. With absolute figures. Thus will occur that Mars is infinitely less terraformable then cosmic dust/meteoroids/asteroids/comets BOTH in quantitative and qualitative aspect. Because Mars is one and it is with bleak chances / conditions to become well terraformed and MOSTLY because it is beautiful and rare as it is, it won't be terraformed. Nobody sane wants to build up or to level the Grand canyon, right?

louis wrote:

I accept surface water is not an essential but it is a by-product of creating a human-friendly temperature zone over much of the target-planet, since ice melts or steam condenses in that range.

working on grander scales makes you loose the finer control and effects. It is as inefficient as using great point source of radiation for heat and illumination.

louis wrote:

Also, terraforming is not just about creating a functional habitat - it is also about creating a beautiful home, or if you prefer one that works well with our individual and mass psyhcology.

Agree. But here we hit another important point. Home? Environment? are these the same of different things? The most beautiful decoration of our present day homes on Earth are landscape features which DECREASE the overall habitability. Mountain ranges, oceans, deserts ... we do need good views. We psychologically may even need to know that our homes are in the midst of vast wildernesses ... This is all matter of wealth and imagination.

Again, paradoxically, the most stunning vistas / panoramas out of the home's windows comprise really deadly environments. Then aesthetically MORE terraformable would be worlds like.: imagine a dome with pocket of air 100 miles within Enceladus or Charon type of planet - tens of miles wide, miles high, with beautiful and rich mmesh of cave-like stalactites and stalactones ice srtructure, the Land - a raft millions of acres wide, amidst a bottomless black sea full of fluorescing life, OR a 100mi wide Virga within the rings of Saturn-like body...

Home is the focus of our civilization, the major trait of mankind. What specifies / defines us as species is the fact that we change portions of environment around us to suit our specs then vice versa. Like www.plantlab.nl approach to "agriculture" which mimics the mankinds one towards the universe. Homes - which substitute the uterus - we can install practically everywhere. The more wealthy and powerful we become the more every- and anywhere we'll be able to. Because if the environment is kinda-sorta "second-stage" of home, or rather first stage, then our growing capabilities (within the strict boundaries of modern day numan-ness) would make easier and easier to place Homes in any environment. Visualize - homes = cells, environment = multicellular organism or ecosystem of such. Macro Life. Self-replicating. Growing. Evolving.

In a Edem environment a home is jus a tent, or the skyclad, in arctic it is with more protective features and functionalities.

louis wrote:

Surface water also has great utility in allowing heavy goods, particular raw materials to be moved long distances around a planet and kind provide hydro-energy, otherwise not available.

No need. See.: www.et3.com

louis wrote:

Transhumanising of people may make the habitable range greater e.g. giving people artificial gills would make huge parts of our planet - in seas, lakes and rivers habitable.

Lets no get in here cause this will burst the topic into infinity. I'll just add that transhumanising is by definition REVERSIBLE. To adapt to an environment, to change your body and mind plans = nothing more complex then to put shoes, socks, skies on your feet, coat on your back, skuba, to board a boat or airplane ...

louis wrote:

However, we start where we are. Mars is "doable" - it can be made a lot more Earth-like with existing technologies e.g. nuclear reactors to heat the regolith and increase the gases, particular oxygen, in the environment or by spreading black ash over the poles to increase infrared absorption.

Perhaps using such deep 20th century tech on sub-optimal worlds shall become specific kind of monumental art.

There is plenty of planets ( planemos ) - about a MILLION per each of the more then a TRILLION stars ( fusors ) in our galaxy alone.

1 000 000 000 000 000 000 - a billion billion bodies. Divided on 10 billion humans it is 100 MILLION planets in the Milky way per human being.

At $13k GDP per capita p.a. - or $100k-ish in wealth, evenly distributed.

10 000 000 US cents per human.

10 Milky way planemos per $1 cent!

Antius · 2015-06-24 21:01:16

The first bodies to be transformed will almost certainly be asteroids. A 30m diameter asteroid could be completely encased in a 50m diameter polymer dome. The dome would weigh only a few tens of tonnes and would allow access to a body with mass of 30,000 tonnes in a shirtsleeve environment. Solar power would be continuously available. Gravity could be provided in rotating buildings. The body might even develop a small biosphere with plants hanging from the dome.

Terraformer · 2015-06-25 07:47:15

If the asteroid has water, you could use that as part of the worldhouse - 5m should provide sufficient radiation protection, whilst not cutting the light levels too much. It's not hard to imagine doing this to a 100m diameter C-type asteroid, possibly growing plants out from the rock. A small Dyson tree, almost.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2015-06-10 07:21:02

Terraforming Generalized

#2 2015-06-10 14:45:41

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#3 2015-06-11 08:51:12

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#4 2015-06-11 10:30:02

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#5 2015-06-11 14:26:02

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#6 2015-06-11 19:54:40

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#7 2015-06-12 00:36:00

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#8 2015-06-12 01:47:54

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#9 2015-06-13 05:49:36

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#10 2015-06-24 21:01:16

Re: Terraforming Generalized

#11 2015-06-25 07:47:15

Re: Terraforming Generalized

Board footer