Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

Auqakah · 2003-03-26 17:53:04

Is the answer to the question

'To terraform, or not to terraform'

an ethical one, or a scientific one?

Which is more important?

Are ethics and science in fact the same thing?

Personally, I think we shouldn't terraform... for both ethical and scientific reasons, as well as economic and environmental ones.

Scientifically, I belive that it is bad science to carry out a practice before understanding at least some sizeable part of your data about said practice; which is something we simply cannot claim in the area of planetary engineering.

Ethically, I feel that it would be incorrect to terraform Mars because 'it is there', as that would set a poor precedent. I feel that we have to be conscious that, in this century, and possibly the next, depending on how space exploration and the various space programs procede, we and our children are the pioneers of a whole new era.

And as those pioneers, we have to remember the earlier pioneers - like those who founded America - and not only remember the good things that they achieved, but the terrible things that they did. Like the ethnic cleansing of the native Americans, for example - or the wide-spread seeding of clouds in the southern states, which is said by some to have altered weather patterns, generally raising the trend of very hot summers in the south and contributing to the effect of global warming.

Or the first men in command of the power of the atom, who harnessed it to kill hundreds of thousands of people over many decades - both that have already been, and are to come. All those things were done by pioneers, and all those things were dangerous steps. The seeding of clouds - local-area weather control - was a ridiculous error with no scientific grounds. Which, naturally, is a dangerous precendent - if you consider that it was and is state-sponsored. Some might think its good, of course. No offense intended to those people.

The other two are fairly obvious.

'How is terraforming like Nagasaki or Hiroshima?' you ask?

Well, its not actually obvious. But terraforming a planet - bending the universe to our will (AGAIN) - is dangerous. We've already raised global temperatures by >2 degrees celcius over one hundred years - a massive shift. And a further five degree shift is predicted. Despite the utter nonesense about 'normal transitions', the planet /is/ reeling from our amateur attempts to bend it to our will.

Do we want to repeat the error of this planet (which is our home, and which we therefore actually treated with more respect than I predict we will Mars, even at our 'worst hours'), on another planet, and force it to our will... only to set a precedent to all the future generations that /it is okay/ to /force your will/ upon /that which does not belong to you/?

Thoughts?

-Important Addendum-

This is not about 'space imperialism', so don't jump on that horse and bark up the wrong tree, because thats a double edged sword that could swing both ways and come back to haunt you like some evil, marauding boomerang with a shiny black gun. Seriously, though, its not. I have nothing against colonisation. And I think that all is required is /patience/. There /are/ worlds out there, like this one, that with /minor/ changes would be suitable for us to live on. And, failing that - why terraform a world, when you can build one? What a project /that/ would be. :;):

soph · 2003-03-26 19:13:14

Where would you get the resources to build a world? What a waste!

We should let Mars simply sit there, because it is there?

Scientifically, I belive that it is bad science to carry out a practice before understanding at least some sizeable part of your data about said practice; which is something we simply cannot claim in the area of planetary engineering.

Circular logic. "We don't have the data now, so we can't do it, which means we won't have the data later...etc."

Do we want to repeat the error of this planet (which is our home, and which we therefore actually treated with more respect than I predict we will Mars, even at our 'worst hours'), on another planet, and force it to our will... only to set a precedent to all the future generations that /it is okay/ to /force your will/ upon /that which does not belong to you/?

Am I not allowed to weed a garden? Or plant a new garden of beauty? What good would it do to anybody to let Mars lie, dead, when we could benefit as a species. We could benefit the entire biosphere. Animals and complex organisms would undoubtedely inhabit a fully terraformed Mars. We could use these techniques to aid us with Venus, and build a triad of living worlds.

Palomar · 2003-03-26 19:21:45

*Well, we don't know yet if it'll even be possible to terraform Mars.

I guess my take on this issue is rather simple: Considering the vastness of the universe (which allegedly goes on forever...who can comprehend "forever"? Not I) and the fact that we are extremely (understatement) limited in our space-ward mobility, I don't think terraforming Mars is such a controversy. So long as there is no native life already there which could be destroyed by our efforts -- if indeed it is a totally lifeless planet -- I don't have a problem with it, ethically speaking. Why not test man's skills and abilities in "making over" an entire planet? I'm ::not:: insinuating you are suggesting it but, IMO, we shouldn't allow the rapes and insults to Earth's environment of previous eras to "guilt induce" us into not attempting terraformation of Mars. So long as we ::learn:: from the tragic and often blatantly stupid mistakes and blunders of the past, and try not to commit them again, I can't see any reason to hold ourselves back.

Mankind's advancement ::can:: go hand-in-hand with being smart and looking/planning ahead.

Just an opinion.

--Cindy

Auqakah · 2003-03-27 16:13:37

Advancement and power are two seperate things, and the terraformation of Mars serves only to say 'we are powerful' and 'we can do this'. That serves humanity not one jot.

And 'vastness of space' doesn't make Mars less valuable /as it is/. There are six billion people on this planet, and one life is worth just as much as all of those six billion together. As Mars is worth just as much as all the rest of the universe put together. I'm not saying that we just shouldn't terraform Mars because its Mars - I'm saying we shouldn't terraform on a large scale, full stop. Low level terraforming (ie, the insertion of enzymes into local fauna to aid their digestion of Earth fodder, so the local fauna won't be harmed by the genetically altered grassoid that we'd need for fodder for our equally genetically engineered ovines, bovines and whatever other vines there are that I can't recall right now) I don't have a problem with - thats simple adaptation, and there really actually isn't any inherant change required.

But changing X to Y is very different from changing X to another X, but in a different font.

And it wasn't circular logic. I was merely pointing out the fact that at this point, and at any conceivable point in the future, we will not understand sufficient facts to enact planetary engineering on a large scale as,

a) we would not be fully aware of the risks
b) we would not be fully aware of the risks
and c) - yes, you got it, we wouldn't be fully aware of the risks.

You /cannot/ plan a military option without intelligence guiding you, and in the same vein, you cannot terraform a whole damned planet if you don't know what the final net effect is actually going to be.

And if we cannot even claim to predict the weather here on Earth for much more than 24 hours /accurately/, and meteorologists are largely at a loss as to how to improve that rate, I fail to see how we could ever predict even a small component of the massive and largely chaotic morass that a terraforming project would represent.

And the very reason that mistakes are made over and over and over again is because people say, "We've learned now. There's no reason to hold back; why would we make the same mistake again?"

Lastly, I have to admit a certain amount of confusion as to the purpose of terraforming in the first place. There is no hope of moving a significant portion of people from Earth to Mars, or from Earth to Venus - not now, and not ever, unless we acquire wormhole technology or master the workings of quantum tunneling or teleportation or the like - and without that hope, the reason for doing it evaporates. Whats the point? We'd just be creating another potential population problem, say, a few thousand years down the line. Not to mention an immense expense.

What if, by the time that Mars atmosphere loss begins to get severe, a massive recession hits Earth, and Mars cannot afford to continue to exist? Then all the previous work would be lost. I know its something of a whining example, but the fact remains that the probability of Mars being abandoned before the terraforming is even completed is likely very high - economic concerns might encroach, or even territorial ones. What if interstellar travel is developed? As I've said before, Mars would quickly be bypassed in favour of easier targets for planetary engineering. Cheaper targets, I would hazard a guess to say, too.

I know I said lastly, but I have to come back to this. Saying that the 'universe goes on forever', and thus each component somehow is less important, is like calling the engine in a car less important than the whole. Both are equally important, because without either, the entire thing is something different.

There are billions (well, xrillions, really) of stars out there, and each and every one is equally important, because without each one, the others couldn't exist. And by a similar token, the planets are the same. And therefore, not just the planets, but everything on them, including their current and natural state, is just as important as the whole universe. And if the universe is important enough not to damage (heh, like we could - yet), then the mote of dust on your finger is just as important.

Of course, the mote of dust is much harder /not/ to damage. But that doesn't mean that you should go get an atomic scalpel and proceed to carve it up, because you think it would look better a different shape.

We are a part of the universe. But we don't own it by divine right, and I think acting out fantasies such as changing an entire planet to our will is just the extension of the fantasy that the entire universe exists only for us.

Its the Sun orbits the Earth, all over again.

VERY LAST comment. :;):

How do we know that terraforming Mars would not affect the Earth in some detrimental manner? If a butterfly beating its wings in South America can cause a hurrican in the Pacific...

Palomar · 2003-03-27 16:28:22

VERY LAST comment. :;):
How do we know that terraforming Mars would not affect the Earth in some detrimental manner? If a butterfly beating its wings in South America can cause a hurrican in the Pacific...

*Erm...the minimum distance of Mars to Earth is 35 million miles. Although debris has come from Mars to Earth, if it is proven that Mars is indeed absolutely dead, devoid of life, then any life we cause to grow on it will have come from Earth. I suppose anything is possible -- but I rather doubt we on Earth would be chancing any great "detrimental effects" as a result of terraforming Mars. They will be two ecosystems separated by 35 million miles.

People once were afraid sailing too far out onto the ocean would result in the ship and its inhabitants falling over the edge of the Earth. We can't halt progress out of fear alone; particularly not when we have the capabilities of planning ahead and trying our best to make the first right steps in a beneficial direction.

Parents are afraid their babies will fall and break a bone while learning to walk...but by god, the kid's got to walk!

--Cindy

P.S.: Can the beating of a butterfly's wings cause a hurricane? Or is that simply chaos *theory*?

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

Shaun Barrett · 2003-03-27 19:24:54

Cindy writes:-

We can't halt progress out of fear alone ..

Never a truer word spoken!

soph · 2003-03-27 21:16:29

Lastly, I have to admit a certain amount of confusion as to the purpose of terraforming in the first place. There is no hope of moving a significant portion of people from Earth to Mars, or from Earth to Venus - not now, and not ever, unless we acquire wormhole technology or master the workings of quantum tunneling or teleportation or the like - and without that hope, the reason for doing it evaporates. Whats the point? We'd just be creating another potential population problem, say, a few thousand years down the line. Not to mention an immense expense.

New frontiers, vistas, worlds, opportunities, etc.

What if, by the time that Mars atmosphere loss begins to get severe, a massive recession hits Earth, and Mars cannot afford to continue to exist? Then all the previous work would be lost. I know its something of a whining example, but the fact remains that the probability of Mars being abandoned before the terraforming is even completed is likely very high - economic concerns might encroach, or even territorial ones. What if interstellar travel is developed? As I've said before, Mars would quickly be bypassed in favour of easier targets for planetary engineering. Cheaper targets, I would hazard a guess to say, too.

Come on. First of all, atmospheres don't suddenly disappear. i doubt we would let it get to that point, either.

And if we develop interstellar travel, does that mean we will empty the solar system? No. People will continue to live on Mars because they want to, or are tied to their homes. Did all Europeans leave England when America was discovered?

And how would it be cheaper to get to Alpha Centauri than to Mars? Let's forget time for a minute here, let's talk about propellant, mass, distance, and so on!

And it wasn't circular logic. I was merely pointing out the fact that at this point, and at any conceivable point in the future, we will not understand sufficient facts to enact planetary engineering on a large scale as,

It absolutely qualifies as circular logic. You're saying we shouldn't do it if we don't know how. How are we going to get this data without trying? You're proposing a tautology, that leaves out any room for experimentation.

We are a part of the universe. But we don't own it by divine right, and I think acting out fantasies such as changing an entire planet to our will is just the extension of the fantasy that the entire universe exists only for us.

Never plant a garden! You are carving out the world to your fantasies!

But wait, we are infusing life into a planet, not taking it away! This is a strawman argument. It is not about the universe existing only for us, it is about advancing our species, it is about exploring, discovering, experiencing! Come now, you don't believe that we must be limited to the our cradle of birth, do you?

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-28 13:50:15

There is no asthetic argument for terraforming, nor is there one for not terraforming. Period. Each side equals one another out, if you take the emotions of those involved equally (some of us may consider our emotional opinions more important than others, of course, but that's just silly). Appreciating the beauty of a ?dead planet? is the exact same thing as appreciating the beauty of a ?living planet.? This point was made by me long ago in Stus original thread about the subject.

The only way a terraforming argument can be made is for pragmatic reasons. Mars is covered with tinted domes from one horizon to the other. The energy needed to maintain the population is astromonoical, most of it being actually shot down from space via solar collectors because all local reserves like fissable material has either been long since exhausted, or there's a dome over small deposits which prohibit it from being mined. If Mars stays a small population, no immigration occurs, and humanity is more interested in the moon or space stations (you can get 1G in space stations, maybe most future humans will find it impossible to adapt to Mars-G, who knows)- if Mars stays a small population for whatever reason, there would be absolutely no need to terraform. Those who terraform, especially without any good science into the subject, would be complete idiots. They're no worse than polluters, especially since they'd be literally using pollutants on a wide scale.

No one should even begin to terraform Mars until we have the science. And not because Mars is asthetically beautiful, or because a Red Mars is superior in some false way, but because we could simply screw up the planet in ways that either endanger current populations (KSRs massive floods are certainly more possible now that we've seen the kinds of water the place holds), or could make it harder to terraform once we do have a plan; we'd have to reassess everything because some idiots thought they could play God.

clark · 2003-03-28 18:48:01

An argument against the process of terraformation is an argument against the nature of Man.

It is in Man's nature to create an environment that is more suitable to his needs.

Would you condemn a fly for being a fly?

Us, acting in our nature, to improve our position, is not negative. Any attempt to contend that it is an evil is mere sophistry and a denial of what we are.

Mars is. Any changes to it's environment does not change the fact that it is a planet (unless of course we destroy the planet).

Man lives in all climes on this Earth. And Man bends the environment to his will, as is his nature, to create an environment suitable to him. We complain now about these changes becuase the actions of some men in one place are now affecting the environment of other men in another place.

Any wide scale terraforming effort will run into the same prediciment on Mars, and I would imagine, as more people populate Mars, the less inclined people will be to do wide scale terraforming- unless they know what and how it will happen.

Things to consider...

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-28 19:26:12

Us, acting in our nature, to improve our position, is not negative.

It's not negative if we wind up impoverishing ourselves in the process? What a conundrum.

This argument is basically saying that polluting our waterways, killing potential food, and making it more difficult to get fresh water and basically screwing up our own ecosystem is not negative, because it is our nature. (No where did you say that improving our position requires a long term outlook, and indeed, you even suggested the converse, ?[...] the actions of some men in one place are now affecting the environment of other men [...].?)

I would argue differently, though; Man is actually able to see the impact of His actions, and most animals cannot. Seeing the impact of your actions and doing nothing to prevent disastor or harm to fellow Men is negative, and I would argue, against ?Mans nature.? Because, almost always, such actions will wind up diminishing ones position in the long term.

I pollute a lake so bad all the fish die, and the fishermen can't fish, sell fish, or buy my boots. I've just destroyed the economy in my local environment, and what I've done is certainly negative, no matter what silly arguments one would make. Especially since I've wound up impoverishing myself in the process.

Any attempt to contend that it is an evil is mere sophistry and a denial of what we are.

That what is an evil, ?Mans nature?? Or improving our position? I don't think you've shown that improving our position is positive when it negatively affects others when we're inherently connected to those others. Indeed, I sense a rather cute straw man.

If you were to terraform Mars, and it were to negatively impact enough people, those people could revolt and prevent any more terraforming actions. And the world I spoke of in the A Question For Greens thread could become a reality. Where no immigration is allowed, and a society of Reds would dominate.

Terraforming almost has to be a very well thought out, very democratic thing to do. Everyone has to be involved in it.

dickbill · 2003-03-29 21:05:41

Terraforming almost has to be a very well thought out, very democratic thing to do. Everyone has to be involved in it.

democracy... you mean with the agreement of all the nations (the UN) or the agreement of what will be the strongest/fitest country in that time (supposedly the US ) by virtue of the darwinian law ? just kidding.

OK I don't know if you gonna agree with me about that:
If we consider the second law of thermodynamic, the increase of entropy with time, some society are more or less far of the equilibrium on earth. For example, the old native indian society were very well integrated ecologically in their natural envirronment, they generated relatively few entropy or "disorder" in their surrounding envirronment, like the red on Mars. The greens may be more similar to the western like society, which generated more waste or disorder (pollution, wars etc ) ouside their system than the indians, but also created more neg-entropy in their own, in the form of information (science, technology, philosophy etc). Those occidental societies were farther from the equilibrium than the indians according to the thermodynamic laws, but if you follow Erwin Schrodinger definition of life (life is a negantropy generator) they were also more "alive" since they generate more internal negantropy . And so, my point is to say that the green view of terrraforming can generate a state very far from the equilibrium but also a state more alive.
Another way to say that the red domed mars is still very dead while the green PFC-saturated Mars is more alive.
I just wonder how much disorder we gonna have to trade in order to create neg-entropy on Mars.
Nothing forbid the green terraformers to "export" this disorder to earth, for example. Then , from the thermodynamic point of view, Auqakah is right, terraforming Mars could affect earth in a bad way, in a way we cannot imagine yet.

Auqakah · 2003-04-06 10:37:41

VERY LAST comment. :;):
How do we know that terraforming Mars would not affect the Earth in some detrimental manner? If a butterfly beating its wings in South America can cause a hurrican in the Pacific...
*Erm...the minimum distance of Mars to Earth is 35 million miles. Although debris has come from Mars to Earth, if it is proven that Mars is indeed absolutely dead, devoid of life, then any life we cause to grow on it will have come from Earth. I suppose anything is possible -- but I rather doubt we on Earth would be chancing any great "detrimental effects" as a result of terraforming Mars. They will be two ecosystems separated by 35 million miles.
People once were afraid sailing too far out onto the ocean would result in the ship and its inhabitants falling over the edge of the Earth. We can't halt progress out of fear alone; particularly not when we have the capabilities of planning ahead and trying our best to make the first right steps in a beneficial direction.
Parents are afraid their babies will fall and break a bone while learning to walk...but by god, the kid's got to walk!
--Cindy
P.S.: Can the beating of a butterfly's wings cause a hurricane? Or is that simply chaos *theory*?
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I feel this is somehow insufficient when I'm aware of the fact that our star holds stable in its path only due to the influence of billions (nay, too many to count) of components spread out across an infinitley large universe.

Auqakah · 2003-04-06 10:50:30

An argument against the process of terraformation is an argument against the nature of Man.
It is in Man's nature to create an environment that is more suitable to his needs.
Would you condemn a fly for being a fly?
Us, acting in our nature, to improve our position, is not negative. Any attempt to contend that it is an evil is mere sophistry and a denial of what we are.
Mars is. Any changes to it's environment does not change the fact that it is a planet (unless of course we destroy the planet).
Man lives in all climes on this Earth. And Man bends the environment to his will, as is his nature, to create an environment suitable to him. We complain now about these changes becuase the actions of some men in one place are now affecting the environment of other men in another place.
Any wide scale terraforming effort will run into the same prediciment on Mars, and I would imagine, as more people populate Mars, the less inclined people will be to do wide scale terraforming- unless they know what and how it will happen.
Things to consider...

Yes! Yes, you have it exactly. The fly may not be able to help being a fly, but the irrefutable fact remains that by being a fly, it is a potential germ carrier, and thus is condemned by its very nature (if it enters my house and won't leave when I open the door/window).

Please don't bring 'evil' into this. I'm trying to keep this rational; evil is anything but, and if we go into that, the argument loses all meaning. I can simply claim 'terraforming is evil', and that ends my side of the argument, and your end of the argument can end with 'not terraforming is evil'. It's not worth going down that path, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, Mars is a planet. But if you take that fly we're already talking about, and turn it inside out, is it still a fly? No. Its a corpse.

Man does indeed bend the environment to his will. And some cultures consider that disgusting. Some cultures (like the Pushtu, I think - any Pushtu speaking people out there?) even consider mining projects (not just strip mining - the 'cleaner' variations too), 'rape of the planet'.

Now maybe thats an extreme view; I don't know, as I'm not Supreme Moral Dictator for the Multiverse. Unfortunatley.

But what I do believe is that to some degree, it is the correct, and rational viewpoint. Take the path of crime, for example. A boy/girl steals a chocolate bar. Now, fair enough, most of us do that - but he/she has other issues, and continues to steal more chocolate bars, consistently. Then they move on to b, then c, then d, and so on. It's the precedent.

If x is correct, then y must be, as y comes after x, and therefore y is undoubtably linked to x. I've said this before, but by setting the precedent of x, you ask for y to happen. Just like with terrorism.

Back to my point, however. If a man bends a womans decisions to his own will, or vice versa, then that is generally considered a criminal act, is it not? Granted, two sentient beings, etc etc... but I fail to see the difference when it is applied to the universe as a whole. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do things we /need/ to in order to survive - but altering a whole planet /just because we feel like it/ seems a tiny, tiny bit extreme to me.

And don't give me that baloney about 'saving the species' by making a secondary colony. Baloney. An orbital, or, indeed, a non-orbital colony would work /just/ as well - and be damned challenging to build, too. Just like terraforming Mars would be.

And I say again: what if it fails, and the planet is radically altered for no reason? Is that even a risk worth taking?

soph · 2003-04-07 12:25:31

So you would rather us stay on Earth forever?

Palomar · 2003-04-07 12:54:53

*Anti-terraformers may be glad to view and read the following:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030406.html

"But Phobos orbits so close to Mars, (about 5,800 kilometers above the surface compared to 400,000 kilometers for our Moon) that gravitational tidal forces are dragging it down. In 100 million years or so it will likely crash into the surface or be shattered by stress caused by the relentless tidal forces, the debris forming a ring around Mars."

How does this "news" impact terraforming plans?

--Cindy

soph · 2003-04-07 13:03:40

I doubt it does at all, itll likely shatter before it hits the surface. And its too small to make a major orbital impact on the planet.

Which brings me to another point, what has tens of thousands of years of human development done to the orbit of Earth? Sorry, but the idea that development may alter the orbit is amusing, at best. We, as a whole can't begin to compare to the mass of a planet or Sun.

Byron · 2003-04-07 14:57:36

"But Phobos orbits so close to Mars, (about 5,800 kilometers above the surface compared to 400,000 kilometers for our Moon) that gravitational tidal forces are dragging it down. In 100 million years or so it will likely crash into the surface or be shattered by stress caused by the relentless tidal forces, the debris forming a ring around Mars."
How does this "news" impact terraforming plans?
--Cindy

My reaction to this is "very cool!" If humans don't get around to terraforming Mars, it seems that Mother Nature will perhaps do it for us. Or perhaps a huge comet will arc in out of nowhere and slam into Mars (much as Shoemaker-Levy hit Jupiter in July of '94) and get the ball rolling for us..lol.

That's nature, folks, it does what it wants to do....and I, for one, am excited for the possibility that Mars could indeed "terraform" itself someday in the future. So if we do it ourselves, I really don't see what the difference is from a purely objective standpoint...after all, we are a product of nature, too, right?

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-07 20:14:13

Is it really tidal forces slowing Phobos down? [Or just old age? Sorry Phobos ... couldn't resist it!! ]

I thought it was drag caused by the upper wispy regions of Mars' atmosphere causing the gradual spiralling-in of Phobos. Even out at 5800 kms there's just enough 'air' resistance to significantly slow the velocity of such a low-density body over geological time spans, I believe.
Naturally, when Phobos gets close enough to Mars - the Roche Limit - then tidal forces will probably tear it apart, but I didn't think they'd affect its orbital velocity.

If humanity bulks up the Martian atmosphere later this century and into the next, the drag exerted on Phobos will obviously become much greater. As a result, Phobos may spiral in much quicker - perhaps reaching the Roche Limit in only 5 or 10 million years, say.

Even if this happens, 5 million years is still a very long time, especially when you consider that the average species life-span is only about 4 million years! I vote we forget about Phobos for now and worry about it closer to the time - say in a few million years!!

Palomar · 2003-04-08 06:51:39

Is it really tidal forces slowing Phobos down? [Or just old age? Sorry Phobos ... couldn't resist it!! ]
I thought it was drag caused by the upper wispy regions of Mars' atmosphere causing the gradual spiralling-in of Phobos. Even out at 5800 kms there's just enough 'air' resistance to significantly slow the velocity of such a low-density body over geological time spans, I believe.
Naturally, when Phobos gets close enough to Mars - the Roche Limit - then tidal forces will probably tear it apart, but I didn't think they'd affect its orbital velocity.
If humanity bulks up the Martian atmosphere later this century and into the next, the drag exerted on Phobos will obviously become much greater. As a result, Phobos may spiral in much quicker - perhaps reaching the Roche Limit in only 5 or 10 million years, say.
Even if this happens, 5 million years is still a very long time, especially when you consider that the average species life-span is only about 4 million years! I vote we forget about Phobos for now and worry about it closer to the time - say in a few million years!!

*Ah Shaun, I was hoping for your input. You gave us wise input, as usual. Yes, the species longevity issue...

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-14 23:56:55

Thanks for the very kind words, Cindy!
However, in this case I certainly don't deserve them. For the second time this week (and it's only Tuesday! ), I have to partially retract a post.

My comments about the effect of tidal forces on Phobos are incorrect. There is a degree of air resistance at Phobos's altitude, and Phobos is indeed a 'lightweight body' - but the air resistance is too weak and Phobos too heavy for these factors to be the most significant in the 'spiralling-in' process.

The tidal forces thing had been going round and round (very appropriately! ) in my head since I read your link. Something was telling me I'd made a mistake and spoken too soon. Then I re-read some old material and light dawned!! I'd been considering the effect of Mars on Phobos but not the effect of Phobos on Mars!
A satellite raises tides on its parent body, obviously - Earth's oceans being the prime example. But even a small body like Phobos raises tiny tides in the actual crust of Mars. The thing about Phobos is that it is below the areosynchronous orbit and is therefore orbiting faster than Mars rotates. The tiny bulge in the Martian crust lags slightly behind Phobos as it speeds around the planet. Therefore, there's very slightly more mass just behind Phobos than in front of it. Also, of course, there is some dissipation of energy involved in the flexing and relaxing of the Martian crust itself. Hence, Phobos is losing angular momentum and spiralling in.
The opposit occurs with Deimos which is above the areosynchronous orbit. The surface of Mars, as it rotates, is moving faster than Deimos orbits and the minute tide it raises in the crust actually moves slightly ahead of the satellite in this case. This tends to accelerate Deimos and propel it into a higher orbit with greater angular momentum. But Deimos is smaller than Phobos, further away from Mars, and very close to the areosynchronous orbit - all of which tend to minimise energy transfer. So Deimos's orbit is, comparatively, very much more stable than Phobos's.

There! I feel so much better now ... as though I've confessed my sins or righted a wrong!

Our much-loved highschool geography teacher had a favourite directive to the class: "Always ensure the brain is in gear before operating the mouth." My original comments about tidal effects on Phobos's orbit were an example of what can happen when you fail to heed the advice of your elders!!

My apologies. ~Hangs head in shame~

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-15 01:23:03

At least the main thrust of my argument, that any collision between Mars and Phobos is too far in the future to worry about, still holds water.
A substantially bulkier Martian atmosphere resulting from terraforming activity will, millibar for millibar, be a 'tall' atmosphere in comparison to Earth's because of Mars' weaker gravity. It will still increase atmospheric drag at Phobos's altitude and hasten the satellite's fall - though maybe to a lesser extent than I had in mind originally.
In any event, it seems likely that the human species will be gone (one way or another) before Phobos meets its fate!

And if humanity manages to survive in some form we would still recognise as human (and still lives here in this solar system on planetary surfaces) I feel confident our technology would be more than sufficient by then to counteract such natural disasters with ease.

Palomar · 2003-04-15 09:54:24

I'd been considering the effect of Mars on Phobos but not the effect of Phobos on Mars!

*Yeah, that was initially -my- concern as well.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-26 17:53:04

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#2 2003-03-26 19:13:14

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#3 2003-03-26 19:21:45

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#4 2003-03-27 16:13:37

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#5 2003-03-27 16:28:22

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#6 2003-03-27 19:24:54

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#7 2003-03-27 21:16:29

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#8 2003-03-28 13:50:15

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#9 2003-03-28 18:48:01

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#10 2003-03-28 19:26:12

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#11 2003-03-29 21:05:41

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#12 2003-04-06 10:37:41

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#13 2003-04-06 10:50:30

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#14 2003-04-07 12:25:31

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#15 2003-04-07 12:54:53

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#16 2003-04-07 13:03:40

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#17 2003-04-07 14:57:36

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#18 2003-04-07 20:14:13

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#19 2003-04-08 06:51:39

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#20 2003-04-14 23:56:55

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#21 2003-04-15 01:23:03

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

#22 2003-04-15 09:54:24

Re: Terraforming... - ...ethics, or science?

Board footer