How far?

Siegfried · 2005-10-09 16:18:49

Just to cut to the chase, how far would you want terraforming to go for you to be satisfied?
As for myself, I would be happy if I could take a stroll on the Martian surface with an oxygen mask, a pea coat, and maybe some goggles to keep out the sand. If terraforming went that far, even not in my lifetime, I would be happy.
Which reminds me of some Martian art by I forget who. I'll try and find it...

Dook · 2005-10-09 17:48:59

I don't know how old you are but expecting to have an atmosphere on mars in your lifetime is not likely to happen, unless we suddenly discover how to make warp drive.

The key to terraforming mars is the amount of CO2 trapped in the regolith, and there may not be enough.

Besides there is probably 50 years of exploration and regolith testing on planet before we would even begin terraforming.

Then, if it is possible, it's still going to take anywhere from 50-800 years to have an atmosphere of CO2.

I want a fully terraformed mars. Hopefully in the next 50 years we can come up with some improvements to make it happen faster.
-much better CO2 to oxygen conversion systems
-100% human waste recycling systems
-fruit and vegetables that flourish on mars
-cheaper, lighter, power systems
-more powerful, lighter, cheaper earth launch vehicles

Siegfried · 2005-10-09 17:55:36

Oh, beleive me, I know it won't be that quick. I'm just saying, if that's where terraforming stops I've got no problem.
It's going to take a long time, I know, because the models on that paper I was reading don't look promising.

(I'm 13)

SpaceBull · 2005-10-12 11:56:28

Just to cut to the chase, how far would you want terraforming to go for you to be satisfied?
As for myself, I would be happy if I could take a stroll on the Martian surface with an oxygen mask, a pea coat, and maybe some goggles to keep out the sand. If terraforming went that far, even not in my lifetime, I would be happy.
Which reminds me of some Martian art by I forget who. I'll try and find it...

Terraforming is not a big issue for me. People will live in cities anyways, and the cities will be covered by domes. (Check out the link in my signature to see what I mean)

Martian Republic · 2005-10-12 19:25:39

Eventually, I would like to see Mars completely terraformed, but that would take a long time to do that over two or three centuries. But, in the mean time building cities on Mars would be just great. It going to take us that long to develop the technologies with native Martian Population who has a very motivating factor for terraforming Mars and a large enough infrastructure to do it too. So I see the terraforming of Mars as a generational thing for the Martian Population after we build city for the humans that moved there from the Earth. I would like a second earth where Mars is, but we will have to settle for a Mars that is gradually being transformed into an Earth like planet.

Larry,

Dook · 2005-10-12 19:26:00

What's the point? Spend all that money and risk all those lives to go all the way to mars just to live in a dome?

Heck we can save a lot of trouble and just put up domes in Antarctica.

Siegfried · 2005-10-12 20:55:09

But Antarctica is on Earth. If we wanted to do that, this message board wouldn't exist!

I think now that Kim Stanley Robinson made it a bit too fast, but then again I don't blame him, because if he didn't who would read is work?

SpaceBull · 2005-10-13 06:56:07

What's the point? Spend all that money and risk all those lives to go all the way to mars just to live in a dome?
Heck we can save a lot of trouble and just put up domes in Antarctica.

Again this example from Antarctica... Let me repeat what I have said before: people are NOT ALLOWED to move there. However, people are allowed to move to the Norwegian settlement on Svalbard close to the North pole, and doing so is so popular that the Norwegian government have had to put in place restrictions to protect the polar bears up there. The total population is now 2500, and half live in the capital Longyearbyen. Without restrictions there would soon be 100,000 there. People would move to Antarctica too if they were allowed to.

The long-term opportunities for mankind would be much greater if we colonize other planets though, and that is why I support spending money on settlements on the Moon and on Mars.

Dook · 2005-10-13 18:52:31

Not allowed? Who is going to stop you? The dreaded Antarctic police force?

You say long-term opportunities for mankind are greater if we colonize other planets, I agree but not if we do it your way. Having a permanent human settlement on the moon means that we do nothing else. It breaks the bank because we will need to constantly send up food, LOX, water, and equipment repair parts.

I know some people think we can make a bundle from lunar PGM's ("There are mountains of platinum on mars" someone said) but we are talking about a bunch of parts of platinum per million of other stuff. Just building the infrastructure for this alone will take 10-20 years.

Now if we forget about the moon, cancel CEV, buy out our ISS commitments, and sell two seats on a NASA DRM mission to mars we just may be able to land there by 2018.

Initial landing and exploration, maybe two following landings with more exploration and test greenhouses, then we can begin terraforming. Hopefully we will have better terraforming ideas and it will take less than 100 years to get an atmosphere and oceans.

Siegfried · 2005-10-13 21:58:57

Well, the Moon is much easier than Mars, and it's been suggested many times that that be used as training ground and even the location of the launch pad, allowing travellers to pack less fuel because of the minute escape velocity. Of course, getting back is something else.

Martian Republic · 2005-10-14 10:20:06

Not allowed? Who is going to stop you? The dreaded Antarctic police force?
You say long-term opportunities for mankind are greater if we colonize other planets, I agree but not if we do it your way. Having a permanent human settlement on the moon means that we do nothing else. It breaks the bank because we will need to constantly send up food, LOX, water, and equipment repair parts.
I know some people think we can make a bundle from lunar PGM's ("There are mountains of platinum on mars" someone said) but we are talking about a bunch of parts of platinum per million of other stuff. Just building the infrastructure for this alone will take 10-20 years.
Now if we forget about the moon, cancel CEV, buy out our ISS commitments, and sell two seats on a NASA DRM mission to mars we just may be able to land there by 2018.
Initial landing and exploration, maybe two following landings with more exploration and test greenhouses, then we can begin terraforming. Hopefully we will have better terraforming ideas and it will take less than 100 years to get an atmosphere and oceans.

If we stay within the current financial system and how people think that we should make money in space, then your absolutely right it can't be done. I will not argue that point with you, because there is possibility of that happening now or ever.

But, we go with a government sponsored Moon build up program with long term government generated credit through the Treasury Department with government owned and infrastructure in a town configuration with government tax rite off system to private business on the Moon, then all bets are off as to what we can and can't do on the Moon. But, that means we are going to have to give NASA maybe hundred billion dollars of credit from the Treasury Department per year for twenty to forty years to finance something like this. But, it could be done and the United States would prosper because we did it too.

Larry,

Dook · 2005-10-14 17:44:50

Well, the Moon is much easier than Mars, and it's been suggested many times that that be used as training ground and even the location of the launch pad, allowing travellers to pack less fuel because of the minute escape velocity. Of course, getting back is something else.

Going to the moon to get to mars is like driving from San Francisco to San Diego when your ultimate destination is New York. It just makes the trip longer and wastes fuel.

Once you escape the earth you can speed along at something like 1.5 kms to the moon, any faster and you can't stop because there is no atmosphere to slow you down. Then you must fire engines and land, refuel, then take off again and escape the moon's gravity. A complete waste of time and fuel.

Now if we escape the earth and go directly to mars we can travel at something like 3 kms and use mars atmosphere to aerobrake in. It's faster, has less risk, and uses less fuel.

Siegfried · 2005-10-14 19:05:22

By what I said, I meant that AFTER establishing the moon as at least a launch pad, a Mars-ship could be built on the moon, with relatively few importations from Earth. As for travelling, if you were to take off on the moon, you could use a very little amount on fuel and be able to hold more of other stuff. You blast off to Mars, let inertia do the rest, and land. Of course, the flaw with what I said is that it doesn't address how one was to get back :oops: .

Martian Republic · 2005-10-17 08:31:05

Well, the Moon is much easier than Mars, and it's been suggested many times that that be used as training ground and even the location of the launch pad, allowing travellers to pack less fuel because of the minute escape velocity. Of course, getting back is something else.
Going to the moon to get to mars is like driving from San Francisco to San Diego when your ultimate destination is New York. It just makes the trip longer and wastes fuel.
Once you escape the earth you can speed along at something like 1.5 kms to the moon, any faster and you can't stop because there is no atmosphere to slow you down. Then you must fire engines and land, refuel, then take off again and escape the moon's gravity. A complete waste of time and fuel.
Now if we escape the earth and go directly to mars we can travel at something like 3 kms and use mars atmosphere to aerobrake in. It's faster, has less risk, and uses less fuel.

That is not exactly true in this case. The most fuel efficient way to get to Mars from the Earth is to fly to Moon and back to Earth using a sling shot effect of the Earth and the Moon to propel our space craft to Mars. A least that what I been told or at least it another way of getting to Mars. So going to the Lunar orbit may not be such a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily make things better either. So the determining factor of whether we would choose to do a Moon to Earth sling shot effect might be whether we had a base on the Moon and whether it could support that leg of the operation. But, with our current situation and what we have or don't have on the Moon you have a very valid argument, but that could change depending on what we choose do in the future.

Larry,

Dook · 2005-10-17 09:17:18

Wrong. What I said in my post is correct. 1.5 kms to the moon maximum. If you go faster you have to use a lot of fuel to slow down again. There's just no point in attempting it since the moon is only 3 days away.

Slingshots don't give you more speed, they just alter your direction.

Now to mars we can go 3 kms and use it's atmosphere to aerobrake in.

Siegfried · 2005-10-17 21:53:51

Now I'm confused...Are you saying that we should use the moon as a slingshot? Or use it as a launch pad and then use Earth to slingshot?

noosfractal · 2005-10-17 23:12:25

Slingshots don't give you more speed, they just alter your direction.

Actually that is only true from the point of view of the planet doing the slingshotting. From the point of view of the solar system, you do get more speed.
.

Izawwlgood · 2005-10-24 03:33:21

Absolutely in favor of the complete or most complete terraforming of mars. And everything within the solar system. We can adapt what we want, and ourselves to fit the rest. Full breathable atmosphere at low points, flowing water where possible, self-sustaining ecosystems that provide a solid influx of resources (organic or otherwise). What possible arguement against any of this holds ground?

noosfractal · 2005-10-24 04:12:36

Absolutely in favor of the complete or most complete terraforming of mars. And everything within the solar system. We can adapt what we want, and ourselves to fit the rest. Full breathable atmosphere at low points, flowing water where possible, self-sustaining ecosystems that provide a solid influx of resources (organic or otherwise). What possible arguement against any of this holds ground?

There is an ethical question as to whether we should terraform if life is discovered. Otherwise, I think people just differ over whether we should do it fast (nuke the poles, bombard the planet with ammonia comets) or slow (warm the poles with space mirrors, manufacture super greenhouse gases). If slow, then we can live there while it is happening, but it will take 1000 years to complete.
.

chat · 2005-10-24 15:42:16

I think this question should be re asked.
How far will mars allow itself to be teraformed?

Since mars only has 1/3 the gravity and about 1/2 the solar radiation that we receive here on earth, i believe the answer is 1/6 earth like conditions for a fully teraformed mars.
If we look on earth for a place with similar conditions to a 1/6 heated earth we are in polar conditions.

Without some pretty serious energy input from a permanent effort, Mars will at best be a very cold place with a pretty thin atmosphere when it sets into its own balance.

We might be able to double the heat retention of mars with greenhouse gasses and a concerted few hundred year effort, but that still makes for a Mars in the 1/3 earth like zone.
Still quite cold.

Asteroids or comets crashing to mars every few hundred years might be the solution to replenishing the escaping Martian atmosphere and to add much needed h20.

De orbit phobos, expect a couple years of a Martian planetary nuclear freeze and raging dust storms, followed by 10,000 years of a thicker wetter warmer climate.

Just my thoughts though.

Siegfried · 2005-10-24 21:59:09

For greenhouse gasses, we could use halocarbons, sulfur, and perhaps methane, though how some of these are to be aquired, who knows. And we also have to remember that when and if Mars is terraformed NOT to make the resulting atmosphere pure oxygen. We'd have to find some inert gas to balance the amount of oxygen so the whole atmosphere doesn't erupt in flames when some stupid kid decides to light up a cigarette.

noosfractal · 2005-10-25 00:02:05

I think this question should be re asked.
How far will mars allow itself to be teraformed?

This is actually a really interesting question. Just how close can we get?

Since mars only has 1/3 the gravity and about 1/2 the solar radiation that we receive here on earth, i believe the answer is 1/6 earth like conditions for a fully teraformed mars.

But I don't think it works like this. In particular you seem to think that temperature is directly proportional to gravity, which isn't the case.
.

noosfractal · 2005-10-25 00:41:35

For greenhouse gasses, we could use halocarbons, sulfur, and perhaps methane, though how some of these are to be aquired, who knows.

Apparently, everything pales in comparison to perflurocarbons (halocarbons made of just carbon and fluorine), and the biggest challenge is finding concentrated fluoride deposites such as fluorite (CaF2), cryolite (Na3AlF6), sellaite (MgF2) or lithium fluoride (LiF2 ). Villiaumite salt (NaF) may be available in large amounts if Mars really did have oceans at some point.
.

chat · 2005-10-25 09:21:16

noosfractal,

The gravity of a planet plays a large role in what atmosphere a planet can hold.
On Mars the gravity is to weak to hold free hydrogen for long, and a few other atoms we take for granted here on earth.

I'm sure Mars could hold a 1 bar atmosphere with little effort, but of what gasses? and will they warm the planet? will the warming just liberate hydrogen and oxygen that quickly escapes the planet, or cause an inch of snow planet wide that negates the greenhouse gases, or worsens conditions.
Mars does get only about 1/2 of the earths solar radiation, but many times the harmful radiation levels that are ideal for breaking apart molecular bonds such as h20.

If we were to heat titan to earthlike condition it looses all its atmosphere in under 100 years.
Would Mars simply warm up enough to evaporate its store of frozen h20 into space?

My guess is that Mars is where it wants to be right now, any effort we attempt to teraform might simply make a very temporary warmer Mars that rapidly tries to return to its native state.

Also the logistics of trying to bring 1 bar of atmosphere to mars is staggering, and Mars probably needs 2 bars to be somewhat earthlike.

Not trying to be to negative about teraforming mars, just pointing out a few scenarios that haven't been given much thought.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-25 10:47:06

Well I know that we had a solar winds effect on the existing mars atmospher but am unable to locate it. But what are the effects of more gasses in the atmosphere with regards to solar storms? Can we first mitigate this to some extent with domes.
What could we make the domes from?

Since we would like to make domes for above ground living and for the creation of greenhouses. They will need to be transparent for natural sunlight to pass through.

The article may have its base in military application but I can see it being used elsewhere.

Air Force testing new transparent armor

The Air Force Research Laboratory's materials and manufacturing directorate is testing aluminum oxynitride -- ALONtm -- as a replacement for the traditional multi-layered glass transparencies.
ALONtm is a ceramic compound with a high compressive strength and durability. When polished, it is the premier transparent. ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant, offers substantial impact resistance.
The ALONtm cost is $10 to $15 per square inch, with heating and polishing processes, which lead to higher costs.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-10-09 16:18:49

Re: How far?

#2 2005-10-09 17:48:59

Re: How far?

#3 2005-10-09 17:55:36

Re: How far?

#4 2005-10-12 11:56:28

Re: How far?

#5 2005-10-12 19:25:39

Re: How far?

#6 2005-10-12 19:26:00

Re: How far?

#7 2005-10-12 20:55:09

Re: How far?

#8 2005-10-13 06:56:07

Re: How far?

#9 2005-10-13 18:52:31

Re: How far?

#10 2005-10-13 21:58:57

Re: How far?

#11 2005-10-14 10:20:06

Re: How far?

#12 2005-10-14 17:44:50

Re: How far?

#13 2005-10-14 19:05:22

Re: How far?

#14 2005-10-17 08:31:05

Re: How far?

#15 2005-10-17 09:17:18

Re: How far?

#16 2005-10-17 21:53:51

Re: How far?

#17 2005-10-17 23:12:25

Re: How far?

#18 2005-10-24 03:33:21

Re: How far?

#19 2005-10-24 04:12:36

Re: How far?

#20 2005-10-24 15:42:16

Re: How far?

#21 2005-10-24 21:59:09

Re: How far?

#22 2005-10-25 00:02:05

Re: How far?

#23 2005-10-25 00:41:35

Re: How far?

#24 2005-10-25 09:21:16

Re: How far?

#25 2005-10-25 10:47:06

Re: How far?

Board footer