Terraforming Mars

[repeter]

I think our time and effort is better invested in looking for a pre-made planet and the technology to get there and back in a few hours.

If we get the technology to get there fast enough, then it is more efficient then a couple thousand years. But, if it takes millions of years, and a time distortion affect or something, then it is technically faster to terraform the planet...which is so close to us.

 

[Goshin]

One hypothesis, and that's all it is but it seems practicable, is to divert comets (which are chiefly composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, the building blocks of life, in the form of ice), using powerful rocket motors or directed nuclear pulses, to crash into Mars.

They hit, melt, and form thicker atmo and seas. There's your start, and in decades rather than millenia.

Still, taking on the terraforming of a planet is such a huge undertaking, its a bit mind-boggling. Forget not that planets are BIG.

G.

 

[UtahBill]

One hypothesis, and that's all it is but it seems practicable, is to divert comets (which are chiefly composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, the building blocks of life, in the form of ice), using powerful rocket motors or directed nuclear pulses, to crash into Mars.

They hit, melt, and form thicker atmo and seas. There's your start, and in decades rather than millenia.

Still, taking on the terraforming of a planet is such a huge undertaking, its a bit mind-boggling. Forget not that planets are BIG.

G.

This is in the Science and Technology section, only because we don't have a science fiction section...:2razz:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This is in the Science and Technology section, only because we don't have a science fiction section...:2razz:

Fifty years ago, people said the same thing about putting men on the Moon.

 

[UtahBill]

Fifty years ago, people said the same thing about putting men on the Moon.

That is ONE example.......still waiting for lots of other fiction to come true. I read some predictions in Popular Mechanics in the 60's that still haven't come true. I can remember them saying that we would all be driving air cars by the year 2000. It is not practical, even tho technology makes it possible. Likewise they said that nuclear power would be so cheap that it wouldn't be metered. How did that work out for us?
And then there is fusion...we are closer, but still so far away.
There is a lot of fiction about what we might be able to do here on earth, let alone what we might be able to do on Mars.

 

[Tucker Case]

Instead of working to terraform mars, we should be working towards being able to prevent such a catastrophic collision from an asteroid or comet that would destroy mankind.

Then again, when one of the super-volcanoes blows, we're all ****ed anyway.

 

[repeter]

Instead of working to terraform mars, we should be working towards being able to prevent such a catastrophic collision from an asteroid or comet that would destroy mankind.

Then again, when one of the super-volcanoes blows, we're all ****ed anyway.

Yeah, too many things can happen if we have all our eggs in one basket.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yeah, too many things can happen if we have all our eggs in one basket.

It'll happen regardless of our best efforts. Eventually mankind will go extinct.

Eggs in one basket or not. Terraforming Mars could even hasten this eventual extinction. Humans evolved for Earth.

Think of the ramifications evolutionally that a dramatically reduced gravity might have on selection? Couple that with the fact that self-selection will be a factor for those who choose to live on another planet (certain personality traits would be more predominant in this group than would be seen on Earth naturally). Now add in the fact that there will automatically be a genetic isolation caused by lack of proximity.

Now, Imagine that this occurs, and the Earth does indeed get detroyed. Within a few million years, humans will no longer exist.

These realities would also be true of any flora and fauna that would be brought along to sustain the human population evolving as well.

So, even though it is possible that we may eventually terraform Mars, it is highly unlikely that this would lead to the long-term survival of homo sapiens.

 

[Real Talk]

I think getting off this rock, and spreading ourselves out so that no one singular event could destroy our species should be a major priority of all world governments.

Why do u want to inflict us on the rest of the universe?
Who cares if we all get whiped out.
It is what it is.
If ur christian, its gods plan. If ur a nihalist, who cares it doesnt matter.

 

[Real Talk]

Oh and im just gona throw this out there.
We aint goin nowhere if we fall into the dark ages.

I remember reading a history book once. A kids history book as a child. On one page was ancient rome, everyone looked healthy and ****.
On the next page, people living in mudhuts and ****. Life expectancies dropping.
Humanity is capable of regress. And we have come so far, im just sayin if we dont focus it COULD be a long fall down. **** like oil runing out, nuclear apocalypse, to much war, disease, internal turmoil, environmental issues could all send us backwards ind evelopment.
So could, in my opinion to much free market capitalism, OR to much misguided government interferance. But lets just say failing economic systems in general. If we dont stay on our a game, and come tog rips with these crisese, we may lose the capability to think about things like this for the forseeable future. An even more rpessing danger when proposing multigenerational works requiring grand strategy.

But this is a bit of a ramble hey, but oh well hope it makes sense.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

How can you damn man?

Why do u want to inflict us on the rest of the universe?

What are you talking about? Are we some kind of curse on this planet?

I think bringing life to a lifeless world is an improvement.

Who cares if we all get whiped out.

The point is so that we cannot be wiped out by one single event. To spread out, evolve, and continue to exist. I care if our species survives, I'd care if we were to wipe ourselves out, or through inaction allow ourselves to be wiped out.

It is what it is.
If ur christian, its gods plan. If ur a nihalist, who cares it doesnt matter.

I'm not a Christian or a Nihilist, I think life is what matters.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What if we disserve to be destroyed?

Who decides that? I think we deserve our existence, our ancestors earned it. They fought, they explored, they cultivated, they struggled and survived for millions of years.

A cancer saved is still a cancer.

I don't see your point here... are you suggesting that we modern men are cheating death through our medicine and longer life spans?

If we can't govern ourselves individually then we can't govern ourselves collectively, so what would be the point is preserving us? To continue the suffering?

Who says we can't govern ourselves? Speak for yourself, I get along fine.

If you see life as suffering, I cannot agree. I love living, I believe this life is all I'm going to get, so of course I want to live as long as possible.

IMO there should be billions of other species with the same chance that we have. If we are resolved to be an immoral people then perhaps we should let evolution take its course and make room for a more disserving species if that's what nature has in store.

How have we resolved ourselves to be immoral? If anything we are becoming more moral every generation. I believe in shifting moral zeitgeist, don't you?

 

[Jerry]

Who decides that?

Who says it has to be a "who" and not a "what"?

I have no idea in either case, this is the limitation of the language. I was setting up my point and I would aprecieate it if you would stop disecting every ....ing line and read the whiole thing as a whole instead of a collection of parts. Thank you.

Who says we can't govern ourselves?

Again, I was offering speculation, you are free to go .... youself if you don't care to participate.

How have we resolved ourselves to be immoral?

Just a clue...you mised the "if" there.

Honestly I expected more out you than this. I thought you were above draging the conversation down word games.

 

[Jerry]

If we get the technology to get there fast enough, then it is more efficient then a couple thousand years. But, if it takes millions of years, and a time distortion affect or something, then it is technically faster to terraform the planet...which is so close to us.

The way I see it, considering how far our technology has advanced in the last 106 years, and considering how long it would take to terraform Mars, that if we started terraforming Mars today we could reach distant habitable planets quickly by the time we finally finished terraforming Mars.

Of course, maybe that same technological punctuated equilibrium would lead to methods greatly expediting the terraform project instead of interstellar propulsion. It's anyone's guess I suppose, but if you asked me to buy stock on one of the 2 today I would buy futures in propulsion over terraforming.

 

[repeter]

The way I see it, considering how far our technology has advanced in the last 106 years, and considering how long it would take to terraform Mars, that if we started terraforming Mars today we could reach distant habitable planets quickly by the time we finally finished terraforming Mars.

Of course, maybe that same technological punctuated equilibrium would lead to methods greatly expediting the terraform project instead of interstellar propulsion. It's anyone's guess I suppose, but if you asked me to buy stock on one of the 2 today I would buy futures in propulsion over terraforming.

I would too, but the time distortion effect is a definite negative. But then again, so is waiting a couple hundred generations. I guess it really just depends which one gets there first. Chances are, that we can reach Mars before anything else, like that planet we just discovered. But, like you said, by the time we are ready to go to Mars, then we can also go to that other planet. I guess we'll just have to see. Right now, the race is a tiny bit towards the terraform plan.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Spaceborne environments offer little protection of the many tiny asteroids and meteors out there.

It's simply amazing what can be done with radar and laser technology, isn't it?

Or maybe just some thrusters on the big RV in the sky would do the trick, ya think?

Plus planets have electro-magnet fields that deflect much of the suns harmful rays and solar bursts.

Not Mars.

 

[Voidwar]

You're all hopelessly planet bound.

Once a species has a choice between spaceborne and planet bound, none will choose planet bound. We only think of living "on planets" because we don't have the choice.

The technological capability to live in space will precede the capability to radically alter a planet by a country mile.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Fact of the matter is that our urge to enjoy open skies and wide spaces is merely part of our cultural heritage.

Any starting colony on Mars (or anywhere not-Earth) will be underground. The people wll for hundreds of years be living in what could essentially viewed as a giant shopping mall/apartment complex with no open skies.

Wouldn't be long before that culture viewed our urge for open skies as mere atavism, and would cease terraforming projects unless something more tangible than their ancestor's feelings were driving them.

Edit:
====
Oh. I see I was beaten to the punch line.

Oh well.

The thing about planetary atmoshpheres is their chaotic nature. Would any intelligent species go to the vast expense of terraforming earth just to deal with hurricanes, tornados, droughts, and blizzards?

 

[the makeout hobo]

Anyone ever read "Red Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson? Great book about terraforming.

 

[Dayton3]

I'm a disciple of Dr. Robert Zubrin personally.

 

[thodeph]

Imo, greening of Mars is already being done, albeit away from public attention. Not the hardest of enterprises with the current technology and officious budget allocation.

In 2005, ESA detected constant methanogenesis on Mars, which is indeed best explained by the presence of micro-organisms.

Mars Express confirms methane in the Martian atmosphere

Now either this was a breach in a covert effort of greening, either it's indication for already existing bacterial life on our neighbouring planet.

In any case, methane is the strongest of "greenhouse gases", trapping heat in the atmosphere. Methanogens are suitable to raise Mars' surface temperature. It's ideal for terraforming the planet.

 

[nerv14]

You're all hopelessly planet bound.

Once a species has a choice between spaceborne and planet bound, none will choose planet bound. We only think of living "on planets" because we don't have the choice.

The technological capability to live in space will precede the capability to radically alter a planet by a country mile.

Maybe, but I think we will always have a need to have planets. Unlike space, with little resources (unless you have warp speed) we need planets to supply us with resources such as food and metal. Sure, people can live in space for a long time by generating energy from solar panels, but people can still strive much better on a planet.

I suppose that just means that people need to live BY planets instead of living on them though. I could imagine with increased population, many people will live in space station orbiting planets.

Maybe explorors will live completely spacebound on their trips, but I can't imagine that for most people

 

[Voidwar]

Maybe, but I think we will always have a need to have planets. Unlike space, with little resources (unless you have warp speed) we need planets to supply us with resources such as food and metal.

Food comes from solar power.

Atoms, like metals and also life's building blocks, are all OVER space near any star.

Everything you mention can be mined, in our own solar system, in the Asteroid Belt, without ever paying the thrust cost of entering and exitting a gravity well.

I suppose that just means that people need to live BY planets instead of living on them though.[/quote]

Near STARS for the free energy, but nevermind the planets.

 

[the makeout hobo]

One thing a biosphere has for it that a space station or a cave doesn't have, is that a biosphere is essentially self-renewing and very hard to destroy. With a settlement, a million things can go wrong, and everyone's dead. In a biosphere, not so easy.

 

[Voidwar]

With a settlement, a million things can go wrong, and everyone's dead. In a biosphere, not so easy.

I think the difficulty of terraforming a whole planet vs building your own habitat is about the same ratio.

By the time they are living out in space, redundancy and quarantine systems will be the norm, and almost universally effective.

Amateurs practice til they get it right, Professionals practice til they can't get it wrong.