What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

Jan-Erik · 2002-09-24 13:03:03

I think it would be terribly unscientific NOT to terraform Mars.
Ad Astra! :angry:

Auqakah · 2002-10-24 12:43:04

I say it would be unscientific merely because to do so would be to avoid the study of the planet in its current state; essentially, we would go to Mars, and change it to Earth, and lose all sight of what Mars had once been.

Hence, to terraform Mars would be unscientific.

But thats just what I think.

Oh. One other little tiny thing:

Nirgal82 said,

"Well, humanity isn't really stagnating right now..."

Oh, but it is. Take a look around. What do you see? This is no golden age; the progress is in the other direction. Technological prowess may increase, but humanities worth is not based on its ability to manipulate the universe around it. It is based on our ability to form cohesive societies. And we're getting worse at that, not better.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-26 19:16:19

[Humanities worth] is based on our ability to form cohesive societies. And we're getting worse at that, not better.

Ahh... as Proudhon says, Property is Robbery.

But, to be serious, I don't think we should terraform without first studying Mars in depth. Or until study is compromised by contamination caused by colonization, and the governments or societies that live there see fit to do it...

AltToWar · 2002-10-27 03:48:31

Lets take a look at the two possible options, To terraform or to not, and add western culture to the mix.

Lets say we decide to terraform. All martians will be looking out their window knowing ther grand children or great grand childern will be able to walk outside without pressurized suits. A good portion of the workforce will be devoted to changing the environment. People will be thinking and planning the shape of mars for generations.

Overall, the chances are good that you will have a beautiful mars in the end.

Lets say we decide not to terraform. People will focus on the human made structures. People will not look outdoors but indoors when they wish to see the future. Heavy industries will be needed to keep up with population growth.

As work continues, industrial by-products are likely to be massed outside the domes haphazardly. Whole regions will be strip mined with little thought put towards the asthetics of the region.

When people think about their childrens needs and their grand childrens needs, they will imagine domes. All that is not within a dome will be devalued.

Some might object to the destruction of the old world, but our love of our family and human future will always come first. Red-mars would most likely find itself turned into sludge-mars.

If humans go to mars, they must change the environment is some way to fit their needs.

If we go to mars thinking that all of mars might one day be our home, and keep our eyes on it, we might be more vigilant in perserving it's beauty.

If we go to mars thinking that our world will always be within a bubble, Odds are that we will come in time to ignore the distruction of mar's ancient surface.

From the first day a Human sets a foot on mars, the planet will be changed for forever. I think it might be more prudent to look to a better possible future then to cling to a fading past.

dickbill · 2002-10-27 09:22:49

To add on that topic, I ,too, think that terrorming has little to do with sciences, it is more about humankind fate. I am a scientist who think that sciences on Mars and Mars colonization are different topics. BTW, NASA, ESA etc should focus on sciences. Colonization is the bussiness of people, not necesseraly scientist, and in my opinion will be done from a private funding base. In that context, I think that the sample return from ESA is a mistake: too expensive and what's the goal exactly: geology, life traces search ? that cannot be done in situ with robots with much less money ?
I think that the ESA's goal is a mixture of technological demonstration attempt and sciences. If Europe wants to invest in Mars long term colonization, fine, then EU should design long term projects inside the appropriate organization: why not the international MArs Society ?
First step could be an orbiting Communication Network, then In situ Propellant/life support test systems...

RobS · 2002-10-29 12:34:34

I am not sure I agree that a terraform-oriented society will make Mars beautiful while a Red-Mars oriented society will ruin the place. We know this is our only Earth and we ruin it all the time. Humanity has a way of making short term self interest supreme over ideology and theology of all sorts, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

But I am interested in another problem with terraforming: it takes too long and it also makes Mars more inhospitable before it makes it more pleasant. Let us say we can thicken the atmosphere relatively quickly--100 years--but can't oxygenate it in less than a thousand. Maybe the numbers really are 1,000 years to thicken the atmosphere and 10,000 to oxygenate it; I don't know. Either way, there is guaranteed to be a thick and unbreathable atmosphere for a while. That means we have to have domes to hold in the oxygen, but they won't have to hold in pressure. Such domes would blow away when hit by a martian hurricane or tornado; and there will be such things. A martian city could have most of its domes punctured by a really bad storm, and thousands could be killed or inconvenienced (just like a storm surge in a coastal city prone to hurricanes). This is a serious problem that will have to be addressed. The thick atmosphere will also suspend lots more dust; Mars could be a constant gray overcast if the atmosphere were thickened (even if the amount of liquid water greatly increased). Such global dust storms would cause surface temperatures to drop; they may be part of the feedback mechanism that keeps Mars cold and thin-aired right now.

-- RobS

Auqakah · 2002-10-30 13:05:45

I'm pretty sure most people who wish to see a terraformed Mars are largely swayed by the adventurous side to such a massive venture. But it wouldn't be so. Each and every time we conquer a new frontier, it comes with a massive cost. And why?

Because we conquer it.

Surely, after so many years of expansion through conquest (both socially and physically) humanity should begin to learn the lesson that conquest is simply not efficient enough; far better to become a part of your new environment, and to find a niche, and settle.

To terraform Mars is to conquer it; and that conquest is what we find appealing. Human beings love to be in control; but the truth is, we very rarely are. We simply don't understand enough, and perhaps never will. But the best way to make up for the lack of understanding is to find the best way to fit into the universe as it exists now - not change it to suit our needs, so we needn't struggle. Thats like running 15 miles to the nearest store to buy milk because you can't be bothered to milk the cow, don't you think?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-31 00:01:30

Hi Rob S!

You raise some interesting points I've never considered before.
But your fears may be unfounded ... I hope!

The winds on Mars are fast-moving, to be sure, but changing the mass of the atmosphere will doubtless have an effect on this, and I think the effect should be in our favour.
The driving force behind high speed winds on Mars today is usually a large temperature gradient, unless I'm mistaken. A dense CO2 atmosphere of, say, 1 bar, will be much more efficient as a moderating influence on large temperature differences than the present thin atmosphere. It should act as a blanket to keep the colder areas from getting as cold, for instance.

And CO2 is a heavy gas. Getting large masses of it moving at high speed will be difficult, especially at 227 million kilometres from the sun where the total heat input is relatively low. Even though Venus gets more than 4 times the insolation Mars gets, its wind speeds have been measured at literally a few kilometres per hour on the surface. Why? Because the atmosphere is so heavy.
I admit the Venusian atmosphere is very much denser than we visualise for Mars but the principle is the same.
With the 1 bar atmosphere mentioned, I would be surprised if average wind speeds on Mars exceeded half the average for Earth.

In addition, with a dense CO2 atmosphere, laced with traces of even more potent super-greenhouse gases, I believe the amount of liquid water on the surface, and more importantly as vapour in the air, will be quite large. I base this prediction on the results, so far, of the Odyssey orbiter's successful search for water in the upper regolith and my own gut feeling that there is even more water yet to be discovered.
Water, as you pointed out, is a very effective 'dampener' (Sorry! ) of dust storms on Earth, and I expect water to play its part in controlling dust on Mars.

As for domes being less stable if not supported by enormous pressure differentials, how big could a geodesic dome be made in Martian gravity? Pretty big I would imagine.
And we wouldn't need such massive foundations to hold it down, either.

Any thoughts?

Byron · 2002-10-31 10:19:47

But I am interested in another problem with terraforming: it takes too long and it also makes Mars more inhospitable before it makes it more pleasant. Let us say we can thicken the atmosphere relatively quickly--100 years--but can't oxygenate it in less than a thousand. Maybe the numbers really are 1,000 years to thicken the atmosphere and 10,000 to oxygenate it; I don't know. Either way, there is guaranteed to be a thick and unbreathable atmosphere for a while. That means we have to have domes to hold in the oxygen, but they won't have to hold in pressure. Such domes would blow away when hit by a martian hurricane or tornado; and there will be such things. A martian city could have most of its domes punctured by a really bad storm, and thousands could be killed or inconvenienced (just like a storm surge in a coastal city prone to hurricanes). This is a serious problem that will have to be addressed. The thick atmosphere will also suspend lots more dust; Mars could be a constant gray overcast if the atmosphere were thickened (even if the amount of liquid water greatly increased). Such global dust storms would cause surface temperatures to drop; they may be part of the feedback mechanism that keeps Mars cold and thin-aired right now.
-- RobS

Is it set in stone that the atmosphere can't be oxgenated at the approximately the same rate as thickening? I dread the thought of pumping up the atmosphere up to terrestrial pressures, and have it mostly CO2...that would probably take 10,000 years or more to scrub out the excess CO2 down to non-poisonous levels.

My feeling is if a Martian terraforming effort is undertaken, the total partial pressure of CO2 should never be allowed to rise above, lets say 40 or 50mb...and the rest of the astmosphere should consist of as much oxygen and nitrogen as possible. One way to accomplish this is to harness small comets and "iceteroids" a la KSR and aerobrake them into the atmosphere, dissociating the water ice into oxgen and hydrogen, and nitrogen would likely have to be imported as well...some of the smaller Kuiper Belt objects might be a good source of nitrogen, as well as Titan and other moons of the outer planets.

As far as winds go, buildings here on Earth can easily be built to withstand the winds of the strongest cyclones, and enclosed structures are likely to be even stronger on Mars, and some pressurization would still be necessary for large stuctures such as domes, etc..I just don't see the Martian atmosphere ever rising above 600 or 700 mb at the datum..anything higher than that would be a waste of time and effort, imo...

B

Palomar · 2002-10-31 11:07:45

The thick atmosphere will also suspend lots more dust; Mars could be a constant gray overcast if the atmosphere were thickened (even if the amount of liquid water greatly increased). Such global dust storms would cause surface temperatures to drop; they may be part of the feedback mechanism that keeps Mars cold and thin-aired right now.
-- RobS

*Wow. Rob S, I know ::nothing:: about these matters; I readily admit that. I thought perhaps a thickened atmosphere would assist in laying the dust. I didn't consider that the dust would be SUSPENDED. That would be akin to a heavy fog, I presume...or at least create quite a haze.

Hmmm. ???

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-31 23:43:07

Hmm, the thicker atmosphere -> more dust theory isn't very sound. We'd have an aquatic cycle, you know. Rainclouds would keep the dust at a minimum. If anything, we'd have a murky ocean for a while (though everything would settle over time). And I'm pretty sure Shaun's comments about air density is largely correct. Though I'm no gas expert.

Oxygenating the atmosphere could be relatively quick. Trillions upon trillions of sea faring plants could thrive endlessly in exceedingly vast numbers in an environment that was oxygen starved. I don't know the math, as I'm not a biology student and I don't actually know how efficient plankton-like creatures are, but it couldn't be too hard to figure out.

And Auqakah, I find your analysis of the psychology of pro-Greens/Blues suspect, at best. One could say that going out in the cold with a heavy coat on, would be the ?conquest of winter.? Such generalizations are pointless. The act of simply colonizing Mars (in an ?ecofriendly,? pro-Red way), is, to you, ?conquest.? Science itself has often been called the ?conquest of nature,? in many radical deep ecology circles. No, terraformation would come not because of a desire to ?conquer,? but because people will realize that relying on direct technology is unnecessary, and that creating a larger self sustaining ecosystem is scientifically feasible, if not critical to the security of a Martian society. Mars would have already been ?conquered.?

And... going 15 miles to the soy milk production facility is certainly less conquesting than forcing a farm animal to live under conditions in which it must submit to your milking of it.

Auqakah · 2002-11-04 16:49:44

Cows are subserviant to us naturally. Its the natural order of things; to be radical, one could argue that they only exist in order to support other forms of life, like us. So really, the cow's enslavement to the evil farmer doesn't bother me too much. But I'm about two hundred degree's off of my point right now, so I'll try to get back on course.

I'm not anti Martian-colonization. I would dearly love to be among those who will one day go forth to make Mars their home. But at the same time, I do not wish to see Mars irrevocably changed. Small change is acceptable. Widescale change is not. There is not one single rational reason for changing an entire planet that will, in all likelihood, not see a large population for a number of centuries, or perhaps millennia. It doesn't make sense. And in that way, I was calling it conquest. The destruction of an environment, or a society, for any need, even an imagined need that has not yet arisen, is most simply described as 'conquest', is it not?

I'd also like to put forward a little thing I thought of as regards to terraformation; seeing as the majority of posts I've seen seem to advocate the use of CO2 to thicken the Martian atmosphere in a two-phase plan, does anyone have any idea what effect long-term exposure to a white sky has on the human psyche?

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-04 17:26:02

Well, from my standpoint, it's not if, but when. Assuming Martian ?free reign? is allowed. I accept that there could be a militant Martian society which for some reason doesn't allow immigration, and shoots down anyone who wishes to come once they've decided a certain population limit has been reached. Of course terraformation wouldn't be allowed, it wouldn't be necessary to the survival of a small or medium sized population. And that population would have been taught that a Red Mars is the only ?true Mars? and that changing it would be wrong or whatever.

So I assume you agree with a strict immigration policy? How do you see it being enforced? We're not talking about a small island, or even a small country. We're talking a whole planet.

If immigration is allowed, it really is a question of when, not if. In my opinion.

Auqakah · 2002-11-07 16:39:08

Of course there would have to be strict immigration controls. There would have to be, if there was to be any hope of building a decent society on Mars. Otherwise, whatever good that might be done in the early years of the colony would be undone by the influx of immigrants.

And, without a terraformed Mars, you aren't talking about a whole planet. You're talking about a series of carefully controlled islands, as it were, really, aren't you?

So really... strict immigration controls wouldn't be that tough, truly. At least, not until personal space craft are the norm.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-07 17:01:46

I'm not for strict immigration controls, myself. I think Mars is big enough for everyone, in my opinion.

And although it may be true that we'd need to only control individual colonies (the islands you spoke of) to enforce the strict immigration policies, it wouldn't prevent anyone from going to Mars themselves, and building their own colonies. You don't need personal space craft to take the resources to build your own colony on Mars, indeed, you could hire someone to take you, much like the first American pioneers.

I can see lots of opportunity for war to happen if strict immigration policies are actually implemented. Yay for the Reds.

Auqakah · 2002-11-08 17:36:57

There'll be a war whether there is a Green Mars, a Red Mars, or any other colour Mars you care to mention. War is, to a certain extent, inevitable, because people tend to believe that it is such. And so there will be a war either way.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-09 00:27:02

Well, I certainly hope you're wrong. Although I think the victors will be the less totalitarian system. Reds would be more vunerable. Outsiders could terraform the planet without ever setting foot there. True, it could prove to be hell, but there may be no other choice.

Any system which cannot handle progress is doomed to fail.

Auqakah · 2002-11-09 12:23:15

I agree that any system that cannot handle progress is doomed to fail; but really, I think just about any system is doomed to failure. There just is no 'best' way to do anything.

And I'd just like to say: I'm not a Red. Nor am I a Green. I just don't think terraforming Mars is a very good idea when we don't understand the ramifications of such an action to any decent degree.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-09 13:08:10

Well, I'm totally agree with you there! Like I've said before, I'm a Red until we know as much as we can know about Mars; then I'm a Blue! Although I wouldn't want strict immigration policies as a Red, I would basically identify with everything they feel. And as a Blue, I wouldn't want complete terraformation. In fact, everything that went into pre-formation on Mars, would come from Mars. I think that Martians themselves should do the whole thing with their own resources and technology. Sure, they will be humans, but they would be Martian humans, and they ought to have a handle on anything related to making their environment friendlier.

And although it's true that every system is doomed to failure; the laws of thermodynamics state this; I don't think that we should take a protectionest approach. I think we should get out there and do everything we can to spur countless civilizations. Humanity needs a little optimism.

We have billions of years left, if only we can get off this blue marble of ours!

soph · 2002-11-24 19:50:45

the purpose of a species is foremost to survive. nature has shown us that a watery, blue world is hospitable to intelligent life. so, to spread ourselves, and thus survive, is to expand, whether or not there are competitors in another territory.

look at it from any sense. religiously, it is professed that we are created in God's image. would not God want beloved seed to grow, prosper, and glorify the universe in his supposed greatest creation?

scientific-natural selection dictates that we expand, conquer new territory, and evolve. obviously, new environments expedite the process of evolution, so Mars is a perfect venue for human expansion. like before, because humans live under Earthlike conditions, if we are capable, we must either adapt (over millions of years) ourselves, or our evironment-the latter is much easier.

social-to prevent a single, boring culture, we must spread and create new avenues for cultural and societal development.

political-new systems, etc.

i could cover dozens of different viewpoints, but my point is, under any perspective, we must expand to mars, and other planets, and we must make it suit us. im not saying we should ignore the fundamental richness of the science to be found, im saying that our needs as a species are a close second, vital, priority.

Jan-Erik · 2002-11-30 12:52:15

(Byron@Oct. 31 2002,16:19)
One way to accomplish this is to harness small comets and "iceteroids" a la KSR and aerobrake them into the atmosphere, dissociating the water ice into oxgen and hydrogen, and nitrogen would likely have to be imported as well...some of the smaller Kuiper Belt objects might be a good source of nitrogen, as well as Titan and other moons of the outer planets.

If future colonists could locate rich enough nitratebeds on Mars, not unprobable(?), and if they also had the technical ability to "move" some of the near Mars/Earth comets around, couldn't they just "hit" those beds with a few such comets, and get some of the needed nitrogen into the atmosephere that way? Iceteroids aerobraking could probably be supplementary to the effort of aeroforming, just as this more radical action could be supplementary to any other shorterterm methods that would be, initialy, more readily available to early colonists on Mars.

On To Mars!

Auqakah · 2002-12-08 08:54:28

soph said: "look at it from any sense. religiously, it is professed that we are created in God's image. would not God want beloved seed to grow, prosper, and glorify the universe in his supposed greatest creation?"

Woah. Thats always a dangerous angle to come at it from. I know that you were saying that as part as a point; but the other parts all held the same content.

Destiny.

It is out Destiny to expand.

And so we should.

But is that really so? Shouldn't we expand because we choose to and not because we have to?

With Destiny we have no choice. And thats never a good thing - Destiny is dangerous, which is why I've given it a capital D. D for deadly, too. Any culture which begins with a vocal few believing in its 'Destiny' has ended in oppression and violence... hasn't it?

Babylon, Athens, Rome, Carthage... the Third Reich... all believed in their own central 'Destiny'. And all of their efforts ended not with a whimper... but with a rather bloody bang.

You might think that that is a tad off-topic. But its not. Beginning anything with the belief that the end result is our Destiny is a disturbing avenue of development - because we all look at the universe with different eyes, we listen with different ears, we touch with different hands. We all have different views, different perspectives. And thus, different ideas of Destiny. It sets a dangerous pattern for the future.

No, there is only one good reason (IMEO ) for either expanding into space, or terraforming Mars: We will go forth, and expand, not because we must, or because it is challenging to our minds, or because it is difficult for our bodies... But for the only truly, honest reason: because we wish it to be so.

soph · 2002-12-10 14:35:11

I dont believe in destiny. it makes it seem that the choice is being made for us. if we expand its because we choose to do so.

other than that, i agree, destiny is dangerous. it can give you false hope, or intoxicate you with justification for an evil cause. destiny is not a reason for success, its an excuse for failure, imho.

no offense intended, of course. and yes, i was making a point

Auqakah · 2002-12-18 16:36:11

In that case, soph, I retract what I said - I agree with you wholeheartedly.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-09-24 13:03:03

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#27 2002-10-24 12:43:04

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#28 2002-10-26 19:16:19

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#29 2002-10-27 03:48:31

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#30 2002-10-27 09:22:49

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#31 2002-10-29 12:34:34

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#32 2002-10-30 13:05:45

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#33 2002-10-31 00:01:30

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#34 2002-10-31 10:19:47

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#35 2002-10-31 11:07:45

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#36 2002-10-31 23:43:07

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#37 2002-11-04 16:49:44

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#38 2002-11-04 17:26:02

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#39 2002-11-07 16:39:08

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#40 2002-11-07 17:01:46

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#41 2002-11-08 17:36:57

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#42 2002-11-09 00:27:02

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#43 2002-11-09 12:23:15

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#44 2002-11-09 13:08:10

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#45 2002-11-24 19:50:45

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#46 2002-11-30 12:52:15

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#47 2002-12-08 08:54:28

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#48 2002-12-10 14:35:11

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

#49 2002-12-18 16:36:11

Re: What reason do we have for terraforming Mars? - See above....

Board footer