NASA Proposes Warming Mars 979
hotsauce writes "The Guardian reports a NASA scientist has proposed releasing a gas on Mars to start a global warming of the planet in order to make it more hospitable for life. No word on how much traction this has amongst geophysicists. I wonder how much simulation and testing you need before we feel safe about affecting an entire planet."
Easy! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Easy! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's certainly possible. The problem is that nobody has yet established cause and effect between CO2 and global climate, and both sides assume one or the other.
We know periods of high global temperature correlate closely with periods of high atmospheric CO2 concentration. We know that CO2 concentration has been stable since around 1000AD all the way up to when we started burning foss
Re:Easy! (Score:4, Insightful)
Um...but yeah...don't believe him, he's just a liberal hippie who doesn't know anything.
I believed in global warming (and that DDT is dangerous, among other things) before I read the book.
Re:Easy! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he did his "research". I've read Cato Institute studies too that are backed by citations and other studies, and usually the studies are either dumb, contradicted by other studies, or simply do not draw the conclusions the Cato Institute wants you to think. Cato, of course, has the excuse that it's not a scientific body, it's an economic body, and it's trying to find ways to fit the world around economics.
Crichton doesn't have the luxury. He's essentially yelling "You're all wrong" to an audience where the experts continue to disagree with him after he's made his case. If you've spent any time on Usenet, you'll be familiar with lots of people who do this.
There are some consensus's at the moment:
1. The Earth is under a relatively recent spell of disproportionate warming. Whatever else it might be, cyclical seems a tad unlikely.
2. The amount of CO2 in the air is increasing as a result of human activity. (It may be for other reasons too, but right now, human beings are definitely responsible for a massive amount of CO2 generation.) This is self-evident, you can't burn carbon stocks like coal and oil without expecting it to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The experiments have been done.
Beyond that, we don't know. Most of the economists arguing against the notion there's any threat usually come down to making one of four arguments: That the first is false (no, it's true, ask NASA.) That the second is false (No, that's true too, it's self-evident.) That the third is false (erm, no, do the experiments.) Or all three might be true but we don't know if human activities are enough to make a major change to the climate, and as we don't know, we should pretend we're not and carry on business as usual.
Anyone can make use of the fourth argument because it essentially requires no proof. "They can't predict for sure that GW is caused by humans". Crichton appears to be ignoring what's going on and hoping the fuzziness and FUD inherent in the final GW-kook argument will carry the day. That's probably why there's no avalanch of scientists in existance saying "Wow, Michael, we never thought of that" (mass slapping of foreheads) "We were wrong all along."
Re:Easy! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy! (Score:3, Informative)
They have been since 1970, at about 0.01 inch per year. The caps are not increasing their melting any, in fact, all signs point to "cyclical".
After all, the only way for the caps to grow in size is for precipitation to fall on the poles, and that's hard to come by when the area surrounding is made up of ice.
Re:Easy! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're looking at 150 or so years of decent climate data for the Earth. Then you've got ice cores and geological data which can fill in more data but with longer time rates for their measurements.
Its not that theres a X year cycle and we should be able to see that, its that there are cycles on top of cycles and large drops and increases in temperatrure of the Earth over its history. You have to deal with cycles on a geologic timeframe, on a solar t
No ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No ! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Furthermore, there is research that could reveal the genesis of our solar system, planet, or universe up there on Mars. We should preserve it until we are sure that we need the planet populated or that we have exhausted all scientific exploration of Mars.
Re:No ! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's our planet. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Also, diverting big asteroids into a planet may have some bad effects on the planet's orbit. We probably don't want that.
Mars is a better candidate.
Re:interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that with our luck, the center wouldn't cool, but rather the outer portions of the core would cool, and eventually we'd end up with a tectonically dead planet, which is probably not what you want... bu
Re:No ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Any attempt to warm the planet would have to be preceded by dozens of missions and meticulous research and preparation before anyone had any clue whether it would be a worthwhile undertaking. Any biological or geological evidence would surely form part of that evaluation.
My personal feeling is that it would not be worthwhile to warm Mars for hundreds of y
Join Now! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you at least read the article? The slashdot writeup was sensationally misleading, as usual. Actually, here's some more info [nasa.gov] on the project, more than is in the Guardian link.
Basically, it is NOT a proposal to warm Mars, it's a study exploring various ways that Mars COULD be heated, and how long such methods would take (conducted by an undergrad student at U. Mass). And they even acknowledge in that link that it would be significantly well into the future before any decision would every be implemented to try warming Mars, and at that point the method of using PFC's would probably be archaic compared to future technology.
So keep your pantyhose on, NASA isn't trying to warm Mars, it's just a study. And in all likelihood it was an offshoot of various studies of global warming on Earth, in which case doing more planetary models of effects of PFCs, among others, would be a good thing!
Re:No ! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Alot of difference (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that your best reason, that it might go wrong?
Sorry but that's dumb. Everything might go wrong. Your house might burn to the ground because of an electrical fault. Does that mean you shouldn't use electricity or that you try to minimise the risk through safety standards and certification? You might hit a wall in your car. Does that mean you don't ride in a vehicle or that you should learn to drive properly and buy a car with various safety
Re:No ! (Score:3, Interesting)
For what value of "massive" are you referring? The Sun produces "massive" releases of gas and plasma constantly. Anything we do on Mars is going to be so much less energetic that it's ridiculous to consider as a possible threat to Earth.
Re:No ! (Score:3, Funny)
What do we do when we prove we can't then?!
Yes! Kuato says so! (Score:5, Funny)
--
Get your Ass to Mars!
Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
When Mankind can prove it can live in equilibrium oni Earth, then it can spread elsewhere.
Huh? That's suicidal. How about: until we prove we can live in equilibrium on a planet, we must spread elsewhere.
By the way, living on a planet for geolocially long periods of time will require geologic action, not misguided, pristine inaction.
Re:No ! (Score:5, Insightful)
It ignores that fact there is no equilibrium on earth. It is constantly changing, and we are changing with it. It also assumes a tremendous value on "virgin soil" as if this one fact makes it better. And what is the value in waiting till we have mastered the earth to start looking at a completely different type of planet... this assumes the Earth data is going to apply to Mars somehow.
This reminds me of the people that say that humans changing the earth aren't natural, therefore it's bad. I always have to wonder what about humans aren't natural, because we are exactly like every other creature on the planet. We have absolutely no choice but to act in our nature. Somewhere along the lines someone decided that if it changes the environment too much, then it's not "natural". This argument isn't sound, or I'd argue that beavers building huge dams and creating gigantic ponds/lakes/starting small ecosystems themsleves aren't "natural".
Don't tell me now that beavers are ok because they look pretty natural doing it, but we as humans don't. Or, is it just us and the beavers now, screwing up the Earth for the whales?
I wonder what point in human evolution we became "unnatural"; Was it the whole opposable thumb thing? Tools? Fire? The wheel? The premiere of "American Idol"? The fact is, all of it is natural, just not "woodsy" like wildlife lovers would like you to believe everything should be.
But back to Mars; Sure, there might be something we could do with the soil on Mars that we can't get back if we make it habitable. On the flip side of that, what good is it if we really can't get to it for any meaningful amount of time?
There's a balance between preserving samples so that they can be observed, and entering the environment and effecting it so that one can utilize the resources.
Fact is there's going to be a balance... we're going to try things, and we'll not always be right, but we'll make progress and learn, and the "naturalist" will tell you it's never time to move forward. The guys at NASA aren't stupid, there will be alot of baby steps and testing before they decide to try anything.
Re:No ! (Score:3, Insightful)
The very same can be applied to your comments themselves. I'll agree that in the larger sense we are 'natural', perhaps more correctly, 'acting in our nature', but the fact is - the Earth has been around for a long time before us, and will be here a long time after us. If we as a species what to exist for any long length of tim
Re:No ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful?
Terraforming Mars at the most optimistic will take centuries. During those centuries we'll have plenty of time to study Mars before there is any noticeable change. I submit that creating an ecosystem on a sterile planet, or one that harbours no multi-cellular life, as seems probable, is not polluting. In this case, the greenhouse would be literal: creating a warm hospitable environment to encourage life.
Re:No ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's to say that (evolution --or-- our maker, depending on your beliefs) didn't intend for us to do exactly that? I mean, think about it: While we're stuck on Earth, we are one nuclear war or asteroidal impact away from extinction. How do we know that we weren't (made --or-- evolved) for the purpose of having the intelligence we needed to eventually spread our civilization out to other planets? I mean, if we lived in equilibrium, why would we ever leave the planet? If we leave the planet, we could spread our influence out in a few directions, and possibly even exist to the end of time.
You've gotta think about the bigger picture, here. You cannot assume we have an infinite time available on Earth to do our basic living.
Re:No ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, for that matter...who is to say that we even have a purpose?
Re:No ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's to say that (evolution --or-- our maker, depending on your beliefs) didn't intend for us to do exactly that?
More importantly, who's to say that the condition it is in RIGHT NOW is the one, true condition that it must remain in for the remainder of our existance?
People in general have this really sill
Bring a big magnet too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Terraforming another plante, sounds good on paper. But can we please pick a planet that is shielded from the solar wind so all the 'efforts' arent wasted away, or in this case blown away into outer space.
Without an active magnetic field, the upper atmosphere of mars would be directly exposed to solar flares, radiation storms, etc. Which is why there is no atmosphere there now.
Re:No ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Several thousand years ago, when the last ice had more of the ocean's water locked up in glaciers, North America and Asia were connected. That is how the first people got here...by walking.
It was only after the ice melted and the sea level rose that it required boats.
Re:The Earth IS at Equilibrium (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no life-ending catastrophe even on the most distant horizon.
Well that's clearly false, for a start. What about the death of the sun? Or of the universe?
More importantly, what about the uncertainties? Like nuclear war? Worldwide plague? Asteroid strike?
The fact is, Earth is a single point of failure for the human race, and we can't predict when it will fail or what will cause the failure. The only safe solution is redundancy. Terraforming Mars is the only remotely feasible option in
Re:Wouldn't it be funny... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd settle for replacement by a species that can draft coherent sentences.
Re:No ! (Score:3, Funny)
testing (Score:5, Funny)
Original NASA Article from Feb/2001 with more info (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, Edgar Rice Burroughs would approve as the author of the John Carter of Mars [johncarterofmars.com] series of books which talked about life on the Red Planet.
Re:Original NASA Article from Feb/2001 with more i (Score:3, Interesting)
Sci-fi authors have often implemented plot devices such as impacting ice-laden comets or moons into Venus to cool it, supply water, and spin it up; however this is fundamentally flawed, as the problem the amount of CO2. Furthermore, impacting a comet or moon will impart more energy than it would soak up. Now, perhaps with a large enough impact you could blast away part of Venus's atmosphere; however, this would need to
Re:Original NASA Article from Feb/2001 with more i (Score:3, Interesting)
But here's somthing I've never quite understood. I can understand how eutrophic ponds become anoxic when you have a sudden die-off and decomposition. But with the ocean, the surface should remain oxygenated (since it has living plantlife) but the depths would be anoxic. You can only suck so much oxygen from the water. Not all the plantlife would decay since you can only take so much oxygen out of the water and most of the organic matter would be buried under sediment.
The surfac
Re:Original NASA Article from Feb/2001 with more i (Score:3, Interesting)
Link to actual research paper (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, I don't think Marinova's latest paper on this is publically available on the internet.
Pipe Dream (Score:5, Informative)
Unless the core spins to shield the planet from the solar winds then anything done will only be temporary. The sun will simply blow off any thick atmosphere. Alas a pipe dream to teraform the whole planet unless you take some ideas from the movie Space Balls.
time scale (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're willing to wait a few million years, sure.
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:5, Informative)
Now let me speculate that the atmosphere of Venus is thick enough on it's own to prevent the solar winds from wiping it off the face while Mars never had such a thick atmosphere. Mars had to have the protection of a magnetic field to have an atmosphere.
Very good data about the fields were found on a quick search: I like these two
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russe
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/pers
Gravity (Score:3, Interesting)
On a related note, the Earth doesn't have the gravity to hold Hydrogen or Helium. I've always imagined that the stuff probably boils off at a rate that varies with the amount of water in the upper atmosphere.
And there seems to be a good amount of water entering due to mini comets (see Dr. Frankl's mini comet theory, which received support a few years back from some NASA studies. We may be constantly getting new water added, mostly to our upper
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:3, Informative)
Venus Facts [kidscosmos.org]
Earth Facts [kidscosmos.org]
Mars Facts [kidscosmos.org]
Simply by looking at the difference in diameters of the planets, you can see that Earth and Venus are very very close in diameter, while Mars is about half the diameter of either of these planets. That is the main contributor to the loss of any atmosphere (if it existed on the first place.) To hold an atmosphere, a planet needs to be of a certain mass (size,) so that the escape velocity of the planet is greater than the velocity
Re:Pipe Dream (Score:3, Funny)
The real cause: insufficient mass (of Mars) (Score:5, Informative)
At a given temperature, a gas has a certain pressure and root mean speed (norm of velocity from its kinetic energy). (A bit of calculation can show it to be (3kT/m)^(1/2), where k is Boltzmann's constant, T is temp in Kelvin, and m the gas molecule's mass.)
If the root mean square of the gas is comparable to the escape velocity (2GM/R)^(1/2), the the majority of the gas will only stick around for a few days (if v_{esc} / v_{rms} is around 1), or maybe a few years. In fact, for the majority of the gas to be retained by the planet for several billion years, we need v_{esc} / v_{rms} around 10 or more.
It turns out that v_{esc} / v_{rms} for Mars for most gases is too low. Water, ammonia, and methane, as well as helium and hydrogen are too light to be retained for long. (Although it turns out that water is just a bit too light, so it might stick around for thousands or millions or years.) However, it does appear oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide might be just heavy enough to be retained.
This means that if there had ever been a significant amount of liquid water on Mars, it would not have stuck around long. CO2, and O2, on the other hand, have a shot. (So I guess we could design a breathable atmosphere, but water would be a problem.)
Interestingly enough, these figures change (for the worse) if temperature increases on Mars (increases the kinetic energy of the gases), so making Mars more hospitable, temperature-wise, may make it less long-term hospitable, desirable molecule-wise.
I got a lot of this info from my undergrad astronomy/astrophysics text: Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics, 4th ed, by Zeilik and Gregory. -- Paul
Smokers? (Score:4, Funny)
College guys, beer, nachos and cheese... (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
When isn't it a good time to tinker with another planet's atmosphere?
Re:Tinkering (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
"artificially created greenhouse gases could set the Martian climate simmering."
"This would take hundreds or even thousands of years."
Let's not get too carried away with the 'stupid idea' theme just yet. I don't think "now" is part of the equation.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
But we are already good at fucking up planets!
safety? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:safety? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have proof that it's dead? Last I heard, the jury is still out on whether it's a "dead" planet. The fact is that there's still a pretty reasonable possibility of microbial life on Mars. We've already managed to make a number of species on this planet extinct. So what, we should just start doing it willy nilly wherever we want?
I know, microbes, big deal. But the fact remai
Re:safety? (Score:3, Interesting)
And how would we change Mars' orbit? Heating up the atmosphere of Mars is inconsequential to the amount of energy required to significantly perturb the orbit of a planet.
Sims and testing? (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently none, since we are modifying the earth in bad ways every day. Having another planet we can live on sounds like a great idea to me, since this one is becoming less habitable every day.
No life on Mars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No life on Mars? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't send anyone down the derelict spacecraft! (Score:5, Funny)
Stupidest thing ever (Score:4, Interesting)
Where the hell are we supposed to get that much of ANY gas?
How are we supposed to get it to stay there on Mars? If Mars could successfully hold an atmosphere, wouldn't it still have one? I was under the impression that Mars' low gravity and weak magnetic field allowed radiation to strip away any gases on Mars' surface.
Re:Stupidest thing ever (Score:5, Informative)
From the article [newscientist.com] in the New Scientist: "The study found four fluorine-based gases that could be made of elements abundant on the Martian surface."
Re:Stupidest thing ever (Score:3, Funny)
Go call up Chris McKay at NASA and tell him your feelings about his project. My prediction is that he'll say something other than "Oh my gosh! You're right! I'll begin a more realistic project immediately!"
Re:Stupidest thing ever (Score:3, Insightful)
All the key ingredients for the warming media (Fluorine based gas, according to the article) exists on Mars.
And yes, the warming agent will evaporate away in a long run. As Martian air warms it up, the rate of the evaporation would increase. This is easy to understand if you know Maxwellian distribution. If not, look it up. Basically each particles in the gas at a certain temperature doesn't all have the same kinetic energy (== mean speed); some particles have sl
Re:Stupidest thing ever (Score:5, Interesting)
The magnetic field argument is a strong one. Its the only thing that protects the atmosphere from being blown away. However, another theory on why Mars lost its atmosphere is the following:
As rain falls through the atmosphere, CO2 dissolves in it. When this rain water hits the ground, the CO2 reacts with Calcium and others to form limestone. On earth, this limestone is eventually recycled through our tectonic processes and released in volcanos/other release points (this being part of the global warming argument that something like 70% of earths CO2 is released by volcanos and is outside our control).
However, on Mars, any tectonic activity has stopped, and as such, this limestone never gets put back into the atmosphere. It's ironic that the water itself eliminated the gas it needed to exist.
One could say its a little of both. When tectonic processes stopped, CO2 stopped being recycled leading to a slightly thinner and much colder atmosphere, at the same time that the magnetic field dissappeared and the remainder of the atmospere was blown away.
Planetary Engineering Bibliography (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's outsource Global Warming! (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent!
We cannot control the effects and cost of global warming on our own planet, so let's try it somewhere else and in the long run, reduce costs for earth inhabitants.
Fortunately enough, nobody yet figured out how to make PROFIT with this
Also in the New Scientist (Score:3, Informative)
Is there enough gravity? (Score:3, Interesting)
babysteps first guys... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:babysteps first guys... (Score:3, Informative)
Mars, on the other hand, has an atmosphere that can block most of the bad radiation, frozen water on the surface that we can harvest, and about a 24-hour sol. Heck, the atmosphere is almost pure CO2, which plants grow very well in. And there have been successful experiments in growing plants in Martian soil in
Simulation and Testing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I suspect that whether it's right or wrong we'll feel just fine about affecting an entire planet with a minimum amount of "simulation and testing". We haven't been shy about affecting the one we live on so what makes anyone think we'll hesitate to start monkeying around with another one.
Genesis anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Titanic Hubris (Score:3, Interesting)
Explain to me (Score:5, Insightful)
What is irresponsible is not to think about it until it's too late.
Green Mars... (Score:5, Informative)
Covers this is a believeable and seemingly plausible way...
One of my all-time favorite SF series, right next to the Gap Cycle by Stephen R. Donaldson and the original Foundation Trilogy by Isaac Asimov.
yeah, don't want to mess Mars up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because if we screw it up, we might turns mars into an inhospitable desert!
Oh wait.
Terraforming, huh? (Score:5, Funny)
It's funny how they're talking about radically changing another world but thing that astonished me the most was the proper use of "affected" instead of "effected" in a Slashdot post.
what about global cooling... (Score:3, Insightful)
i'm not joking, it seems to me that it would be energetically MORE feasible to cool things down in venus's atmosphere than it would be to heat things up in mars, and probably take less time too
to heat mars up, you would need a significantly denser atmosphere... where is that coming from?
while on venus, you just need to precipitate certain things out of the already dense atmosphere
it is easier to remove something already there than to introduce something that isn't there
of course, cooling down venus or heating up mars are both huge undertakings
it just seems to me that the thermodynamics of cooling down venus presents an easier challenge in comparison
Re:what about global cooling... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I cannot for the life of me think of a feasible way to get rid of most of a planets atmosphere. You would need to move the gas offworld, or find some way to eliminate it. Somehow I doubt that pumping it
Mars problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Feel safe? (Score:4, Funny)
Should be a raving success! (Score:4, Funny)
Troll? Hell yeah!
Manifest Destiny (Score:5, Insightful)
But, like genetic engineering, it is inevitable: humans will become increasingly engineered on the genetic level, that the living space of man will expand to every corner of the earth and beyond..this is our destiny.
But politics will control WHICH humans will do it, who will be the perfect beings, who will conquer Mars, and at what point will a war with Earth break out?
Being anti-genetic engineering or anti-Mars-colonization is like being anti-gun or anti-drug: forces bound to lose because of the great advantages that a sole user of the technology will have, and their power as a group will be unstoppable, whether they are an organized force or not.
I'd really like to expound on this and probably correct some of my wording, but Slashdot isn't generally a place for well-though-out arguments.
Links to better articles (Score:5, Informative)
Greenhouse gases could breathe life into Mars
MSNBC [msn.com], New Scientist [newscientist.com] and PhysOrg [physorg.com] report on research by Margarita Marinova and others on using synthetic greenhouse gases to warm the Martian atmosphere and create the conditions [globalnet.co.uk] for life to thrive. The study focused on fluorine-based gases (dubbed "super-greenhouse gases"), which would be non-toxic, nearly 10,000 times as effective at capturing heat as CO2, and could be made from Martian resources. The research concluded that adding 300 parts per million of these gases would lead to a feedback effect by unfreezing CO2 and water on the surface. According to Marinova, 'Since warming Mars effectively reverts it to its past, more habitable state, this would give any possibly dormant life on Mars [wikipedia.org] the chance to be revived and develop further.' The feasibility and consequences of such terraforming [wikipedia.org] have been debated in the past [rednova.com].
Also, note that contrary to the accepted submission's title, NASA hasn't done any sort of proposal of actually doing this. This is simply cool research exploring a very interesting "What-if".
3. Things Wrong With This Story (Score:3, Informative)
1. The notion of terraforming Mars isn't exactly new.
2. This short and incomplete report would be comfortable in a tabloid, not in the broadsheet Guardian, a left-wing UK paper funded by a left-wing UK foundation to promote left-wing ideology. (Nothing wrong with being left-wing, or right-wing, but it helps to know who's paying for the news you're reading.)
3. This is not a NASA proposal, as
Hang on... one planet at a time... (Score:4, Funny)
Let's try to focus here, people.
Duty. (Score:5, Insightful)
A project as large as terraforming Mars (or an asteroid) by it's very nature will require massive biological systems for completion. I predict that living creatures will be adapted both to vaccuum and various atmospheres, if we don't find life already there - giant tree cities on comets, kelp ponds in Mars craters, post-human cyborgs, etc.
Creating new biospheres and offworld industries will greatly improve both standards of living and our ecological footprint on Earth. Enough colonization will mean the ability to protect the home world better. Making Mars bloom is our duty and destiny.
Support private spaceflight, it's the only way this can happen. And fire up the florine pumps. 8)
Josh
Why worry? There's no downside. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ahem (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if the whole world was a democracy (which it's not), the world at large does not have the means to get there first and claim it... and the certaintly wouldn't contribute to the effort even if they did support it. So nyah nyah to them
Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Funny)
In other news, shares of automakers flew through the roof today as speculators pointed to the need for tens of millions of automobiles that will need to be left idling for a week to trigger this. Contruction on the 6-lane highway that the cars will be parked on has begun this week, complete with toll booths and signs for Jersey City exits.
Scientists are positive that the past 100 years of atmospheric modeling on US roads has produced the most effective greenhouse booster possible.
Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So much for the Prime Directive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Point A to point B (Score:3, Informative)
The article states everything needed is available ON MARS. You'd send robotic factories to Mars to mine, process, and distribute the materials automatically. Nothing but the originial equipment would need to be sent. No chemicals would need be made here. No human interaction, except for some remote input, would be required.