NASA Prototype: Could It Make Mars Breathable? 284
spiralx writes: "Scientists at NASA have successfully tested a solar-powered machine that takes carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere and produces pure oxygen. It will be tested for real on the next lander to go to Mars, planned for 2003. The article is here at Line One News." Mars will start seeming a little closer as news like this continues.
Terraforming issues (Score:1)
Secondly, probably the best way to terraform a planet would be to use a genitically engineered bacteria which would transform the atmosphere using a fermentation like process. Ie. the waste product of the bacteria (the new earth-like atmosphere) would be poisonous to the bacteria so by forming the atmosphere the bacteria kills itself off (therefore we would have no problems getting rid of the bacteria when it had done it's job). The problem here is that the bacteria my mutate (a process which would be accelerate by the high UV radiation levels in the martian atmosphere) and form some nasty bacteria which could be harmful to humans - could a termination after N reproductions gene be manufactured to solve this problem?
How to produce an atmosphere (Score:1)
--
Life vs. intelligent life (Score:2)
I personally believe life is ubiquitous. Intelligent life is another question. It I believe to be common, but nowhere near as much so as life itself.
I agree with this. Given that the time span over which life arose on Earth is far too short for purely random processes, it does seem like there are organising principles that come into play very early on in a planet's development. This would tend to point to life being relatively common on worlds with the conditions required to support it.
And given some of the places we find life on Earth today - hydrothermal vents, arctic wastes, miles below the Earth's surface and so on - the range of conditions under which life of some description could arise would also seem to be fairly broad, again supporting the theory that life might be fairly common.
OTOH intelligent life is a totally different question. Out of all of Earth's species it only seems to have arisen once - as a surivival adaption it seems that there are a lot better routes which living creatures have followed. After all, look at sharks and crocodiles, animals which have remained essentially unchanged for millions of years. There's no need for intelligence to produce an animal capable of surviving for huge spans of time.
So I think colonising Mars is a good thing. Eggs and baskets, you know :) Sure it's not going to solve the population crisis - if you had a thousand spaceships each taking a thousand people to Mars each year that's still only a million people every year - currently only 1/5000 of the Earth's population.
But it gives us a better foothold in space, and Mars' gravity well is much easier to get out of than Earth's is, allowing it to be used as a base to reach the asteroids and beyond.
Re:Drive '57 Chevy for an instant ozone layer (Score:1)
Which brings up the thought that a way to start an ozone layer on Mars is via setting up weather patterns. I remember hearing somewhere that lightning is our big ozone producer here on Earth. Of course, us making weather implies atmosphere, water, and some fscking clue on how weather works.
Re:Mars used to have a breathable atmosphere... (Score:1)
Re:What about GRAVITY?!?! (Score:1)
Re:Mars used to have a breathable atmosphere... (Score:1)
Princesses of Mars (Score:1)
Would some bikinis do?
__
Wrong. (Score:3)
Yes there is: fewer billboards.
Re:Cure for Global Warming? (Score:1)
Hot weather sucks anyway. I get uncomfortable if it goes above 25C
Re:Mars used to have a breathable atmosphere... (Score:1)
If you do a simple ideal gas calculation of the average velocity of an oxygen atom at 300K the velocity is much lower than the escape velocity of Mars (.7km/s compared to ~5km/s).
I know this isn't the best way to calculate this but its not a bad first approximation, so I was wondering what calculation you're using.
Re:pleeeeease DON'T terraform Mars (Score:1)
Under the assumption that all affects are limited in scope to Mars, this *might* be true. Maybe they are and maybe they're not. Who's to say us destroying a unique microbe species on Mars won't start a chain of events that cause Jupiter to blow up or something? Contrived and improbable, yes. But all actions have consequences, and we as humans aren't omniscient enough to know them.
To argue that humanity's extinction would be good is just plain silly.
Likewise, to argue that humanity's extinction would be bad is equally silly. Just because we're sentient doesn't make us any more or less important than the hypothetical microbes on Mars.
This all reminds me of the episode of ST:TNG where a planet had a colony of microbes living under the soil. The individual microbes weren't sentient, but the colony as a whole was.
Not terraforming... (Score:1)
Re:On a big scale? (Score:2)
Before that, most theories say that you would pump the atmosphere so full of greenhouse gases that the planet would increase in temperature by over 200 degrees Fahrenheit. This would make it possible to cultivate plants which would exchange CO2 for O2. How does that strike you for ecological rape?
This theory would seem to bypass that by using solar-powered machines, but be honest: you're not going to fill the atmosphere of an entire planet with oxygen via machines (except in Total Recall, that is). The only way for this to be even remotely possible is with large-scale agriculture over a sustained period of years, even decades (I don't know).
--
Re:On a big scale? (Score:2)
"Let use redefine progress to mean that just because we CAN do a thing, does not mean that we MUST do that thing."
There is no reason why we couldn't just live on mars without trying to turn it into another Earth. At some point I would like to see us accept a planet for what it is and try to live there without bending it to our will. I think it would be nice to know that Mars will always be red and never be green or blue. To think that someday, we might have technology and not feel obligated to use it to destroy something that is pretty beautiful to begin with is a nice dream. Wouldn't that be a more difficult thing to do that teraforming? To NOT mess it up?
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
That's all very well but ... (Score:1)
(sorry, couldn't resist).
Huh? KSR is MALE? (Score:1)
*sound of paradigm collapsing*
--Fesh
Re:CO2 + 2 H20 -> 2 O2 + CH4 (Score:2)
The Director of NASA was on CNN last week and was asked about Mars. He stated that "There will be a man on Mars in no less than 10 years and no greater than 20 years."
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:1)
In other words, not at all?
Anyway . .
I do think this is the next step, though. There is no right and wrong. This is uncharted territory, and unlike selling organs or patenting human chromosome patterns, this one probably has no potential victim.
I think we should get started right away, honestly though. The universe is out there, the whole thing, and it's all there for anyone who wants to go.
It's not like there isn't enough room out there. Now, on Earth . . .
I think slashing and burning once we can leave any given planet should be avoided, of course.
So NASA's invented... (Score:2)
Re:Cautions Against Terraforming Mars (Score:1)
Blowing up the moon would wreak ecological havoc on this planet, but that doesn't have anything to do with environmentalism. When you change things, there are effects. You can't just change the entire ecology of a several billion-year-old planet and expect there to be absolutely no side-effect. And if your narrow field of view only takes into account environmental possibilities in the sense of happy little squirrels and blooming flowers, you're missing an entire field of potential. As another poster pointed out, with the very imperfect spin of Mars, it would be difficult to successfully terraform, and even if we accomplished some manner of change, there's no telling what the actual result would be. Your small farming and research community in the desert one day could be flooded the next, or swept away in a massive storm.
Maybe you'd like to live there. In fact, I'd like you to live there, too. But I'll happily stay here where I know that Portland is going to be rainy, San Jose is going to be dry and hot, and there's a McDonald's on the corner of every street in both cities.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:1)
Scientists recently genetically engineered plants to grow faster. [excite.com] It's all coming to a head -- I love the idea of "singularity", it scares the heck out of people, getting them to donate to Foresight [foresight.org].
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oxygen conversion as a weapon (Score:1)
Haven't seen anyone planting a lot of begonias in a room and waiting for the place to blow up. A lot of greenhouses would have exploded this way. Most likely the device produces enough oxygen to breathe. That's like 20% of the atmosphere and well below any dangerous levels.
If you want to make oxygen just take a tub of water and stick unshielded wires and run a few thousand volts through there. Electrolysis will make oxygen for you. Making oxygen on earth is no problem. The trick is to do it in space (or on other planets) with what you have there.
Now as long as they don't crash it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:1)
Biological warfare, 15th century style. Put a bunch of dirty smelly pirates on a ship for three months, let simmer, serve on unsuspecting native populations.
--
Global warming? (Score:1)
Re:Life vs. intelligent life (Score:1)
In some of his books (and also in the works of Stephen Baxter) he deals with this issue.
My view is that we can't really bet on life evolving anywhere else. Until we have proof we have to consider the chance that we are indeed alone. I think it is our responsibility to see to it that life continues even if something happens to us. Just sending out rockets with bacteria inside into the depths of space would be a start. Then when we have the technology, perhaps to send humans or human genes into space as well. We can't assume that space is full of life.
To this end, populating Mars would also increase the likelyhood of the continuation of life. If we can terraform it, we should. If nothing else then just because it is the first step before going deeper into space.
Re:Now as long as they don't crash it... (Score:1)
There is no reason to continue maintaining the Old Boys Club. If you want to keep women, jews and non-whites in their place, just join the KKK.
Really you'd be shooting yourself in the foot by trying to stop affirmative action. Eventually the IQ gaps that you are talking about will narrow, and that's when the payoff comes. All the pain that you're experiencing now will seem worth it because you'll have more than twice the problem-solving power that you have now. Giving people the chance to develop their skills for the future is every bit as important as pioneering the exploration of space.
On a big scale? (Score:5)
Eventually, people are going to want to do this to the entire atmosphere of Mars to make it breathable. What will happen then? Should an undertaking like that be considered? Should we totally alter a foreign planet and bring it away from its natural state? What would the result be?
While today this may seem like science fiction (Aliens, Total Recall, etc.), it won't be all that long before this kind of thing becomes a real possibility.
It is a curious but worrysome proposition.
Amusing writing (Score:3)
So this means NASA went all the way to Mars then? Or did they just set up a really long tube from Mars and syphon the air to Earth?
Re:Yer funny (Score:2)
"I think terraforming Mars is a GOOD first step in our interplanetary expansions."
If we can't live on Mars without terraforming it, what makes you think we can terraform it? The science and knowledge required to terraform a planet are barely within our grasp. It's a much better concept to make Mars a home before we begin to re-decorate.
It's quite possible teraforming Mars could be the most dangerous thing we can do with Mars. Getting there and living there will do many positive things without us having to re-arrange Mars. We can learn about Mars. We can learn about new technologies that will help us be self sufficient on a new world. Then, and only then, should we start to think about teraforming. Here we are sureying a new entire branch of technology and seeing no drawbacks. Well, we also thought anti-bacterial soap was a good idea. Now we're over-run with bacteria that's resistant. Just because teraforming LOOKS like a sure thing, or APPEARS to be harmless doesn't mean it won't come back to bite us.
Sure, I may sound too much like some raving luddite, but when Mars is sitting in a super dense, poison filled, CO2 atmosphere because we made some mistake, don't say I didn't warn you.
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
What my chem and physics profs did... (Score:2)
Yes... Another unsubstantiated claim from me..
The important point: If global warming really exists (subject of some debate) on Earth, can we use it to eat greenhouse gasses?
Re:So NASA's invented...Trees! (Score:2)
We're gonna need machinery here, not plants folks.
---
heating the core (Score:2)
Or maybe just pirate Mars bit by bit as land-fill for our Dyson spheres!
Re:What about GRAVITY?!?! (Score:2)
This has long fuelled speculation that mars used to be about Earth-sized but that a collision with something ripped the top off (and with it the atmosphere) a loooooong time ago.
Venus is closer to the Earth in mass and size.
Hohum
troc
Re:Life vs. intelligent life (Score:2)
Heh, Greg Egan and Stephen Baxter are two of my favourite authors, if not my favourites :) I've read all of their stuff. They are probably the best at coming up with truly interesting ideas that are actually based on bizarre but plausible parts of science, especially some of the stuff in Vacuum Diagrams - a lifeform made from mathematical hypotheses?
My view is that we can't really bet on life evolving anywhere else. Until we have proof we have to consider the chance that we are indeed alone.
Whilst it is my opinion that there is life elsewhere, I agree that we cannot assume that at all - there are too many unknown factors at this point in time. Anyone making a definite statement is jumping the gun by a long shot.
And assuming we don't develop FTL travel within a reasonable timescale, then Mars is the ideal stepping stone to the rest of the Solar System - lower gravity, closer to the asteroid belt and its vast store of useful resources. I think colonising it is worthwhile for many reasons.
OTOH, given past history, it will be done at some point no matter how good the objections. It's better to plan now while there's still some time to go :)
P.S. Do you have his web page address?
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:2)
Would you mind explaining what might be wrong about terraforming Mars? It's not like destroying anything other than a dead planet, anyway. Nothing lives there, and spectacular claims to the contrary notwithstanding it doesn't seem like anything ever did live there.
However, I don't think we have the resources to terraform it anyway, so the issue is moot.
I found a little more info here... (Score:2)
yummy.
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:3)
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
Not launching just yet (Score:2)
Well, according to SPACE NEWS vol.11 no.21 May 29, 2000 pg2
...NASA issued a stop work order on the lander May 12 in a move that coincided with an announcement of two new mission concepts as the front runner for the 2003 mission
"An experiment to extract oxygen from the Martian atmosphere is among three payloads left in limbo following NASA's directive to halt work on a Mars lander originally slated to fly in 2001...
Re:CO2 + 2 H20 -> 2 O2 + CH4 (Score:2)
Re:Oxygen is for more than just breathing... (Score:2)
Sorry, you're a bit naïve there.
First of all, as another poster pointed out, it's not the proportion of oxygen that counts but the partial pressure. The oxygen partial pressure in the Earth's atmosphere is around 200hPa (hPa = hectopascal: sorry, I use SI units not p.s.i) and it's that figure which matters. Same for burning (even assuming there's anything to burn on Mars, which is dubious).
As for making water out of oxygen and hydrogen, that is not, I repeat emphatically not the way you want to do it. You don't want to use up all your hard-won oxygen to burn hydrogen: reflect upon the fact that a liter of oxygen at the abovementioned 200hPa pressure will, when used to transform the stoichiometric quantity of hydrogen, produce only (scribble, scribble) 0.16 grams of water. A ratio of over 6000 in volume: imagine how much oxygen you'd need to make an ocean of...
Actually, water is probably abundant enough on Mars, even igoring the ice caps. Extracting it might be much more delicate, however. Of course, there's no question of making an ocean either. There's no way you could have an ocean (again?) on Mars.
Even if water were very abundant, you couldn't use it the other way around, either, to produce oxygen. Electrolysis of large enough quantities to fill a whole atmosphere? Calculate the free enthalpy you'd need, and then forget it.
Re:Mars used to have a breathable atmosphere... (Score:2)
The way I heard it, the main problem was the absence of plate tectonics on Mars. If it certainly had an active core (as shown by the presence of the large volcanoes), this is no longer the case. Plate tectonics is an essential factor in renewing the atmosphere.
This is about having a dense atmosphere. But even then I doubt that Mars ever had a breathable atmosphere. Remember that the primitive Earth's atmosphere was not at all made of oxygen: it was reducing and not oxidizing. It changed from reducing to oxidizing billions of years ago under the action of certain bacteriæ. Unless you positively assume that Mars also had similar bacteriæ, something I find dubious at best, it was probably reducing all along.
As for the part about "keeping it there", please keep the time scale in mind: if all of a sudden Mars had an atmosphere of pure oxygen, 200hPa in pressure, it would take longer than the continued existence of the human species for that atmosphere to disappear (the human species has existed for around 3 million years: this is next to nothing compared to a planet that exists for billions of years).
Finally, the point you make about the balloon is misleading at best: helium rises because it is lighter than dioxygen, and that doesn't depend on the magnitude of the grav pull of the planet.
Re:I bet you're against global warming too... (Score:2)
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
Trace gasses and temperature? (Score:2)
There are elements of sulfur, ammonia, and carbon monooxide in way too great of quanities present in the atmosphere. True, all of these elements can be converted to a non-issue, except the sulfur. Not sure how they are going to get rid of that.
Secondly, how are they going to get a breathable atmosphere when the pressure there is nearly negligible. the atmosphere is only half a mile high, we have 14 miles of atmosphere on earth. The reduced biosphere is going to be hard pressed to remove all the cosmic rays.
It takes a lot more than a little oxygen to teraform a planet though.
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Re:Patent! (Score:2)
Ah yes, the patent that is pending on hydrocarbons. Its so innovative, it doesn't require common manufacturing techniques to make this fossil fuel. Using proprietary techniques, it is pressure formed in the deep safety well below the ground. Guaranteed to produce billions of barrels of such fuel for the entire earth.
You can bet when the patent office grants my patent, the world will be my oyster.
Mark the above insightful (Score:2)
Colonization of space may be inevitable to ensure the species' survival, but "leave things better than you found them" must also be learned -- and sooner!
How it all happened here (Score:4)
The Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere
Mercury --- 4,300 m/s
Venus --- 10,300 m/s
Earth --- 11,200 m/s
Mars --- 5,000 m/s
Jupiter --- 59,500 m/s
Saturn --- 35,500 m/s
Earth's Moon --- 2,400 m/s
Remember the Mutants! (Score:3)
Not for terraforming (Score:2)
The mars reference mission includes sending unmanned craft ahead, including craft that will land and, using solar power & a few stored chemicals, turn carbon dioxide from mars atmosphere and turn it into both oxyjen and some kind of alcohol (rocket fuel). It will store these in large tanks. The idea is that this is much less costly than shipping the required oxygen ahead, as the mass is much lower.
Re:On a big scale? (Score:2)
--
Cure for Global Warming? (Score:2)
Zubrin (Score:3)
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:2)
Hah! Drop a bucket of Kudzu on the surface of mars, waite 3 weeks, instant terraforming!
Everyone knows Kudzu will live anywhere, in anything, and obscenely fast. Of course, it's impossible to get rid of after it finishes terraforming the place.... Hrmm....
Kintanon
Oxygen's all well and good... (Score:2)
Clean air (Score:2)
I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:5)
Some sort of genetically engineered plant or algae would be more realistic for planetary alterations, although mass water supplies would be likely required for this type of operation. If machinery was used, it would most likely have to be constructed from local materials and have a vastly larger scale power source than sunlight (which is weaker there.)
Re:On a big scale? (Score:2)
--
VIKING RESULTS: PLEASE READ (Score:2)
I've never said this before, but please consider modding this up so it make it to 'hot links'. This thread is getting 'old', and few will see this information otherwise
I wish I'd seen this article before, because it seems that *everyone has forgotten the truth about the Viking I [nasa.gov] and II [nasa.gov] findings regarding the life on Mars experiments [nasa.gov]:
In short strokes: Most of the tests were positive as NASA fully admits (but sometimes buries) several researchers associated with the experiments have reported the horror at NASA when the results came in -- "We can't publish this! We'll look like fools." Please remember this was a billion dollar mission planned at a time (70's) when a billion dollars was a lot mpore money than it is today, andthat these experiments were widely peer-reviewed around the world, and considered solid until they yielded positive results
I wish I could provide you with links to why the individual results were disqualified, but the NASA website containing most of my old links is gone or merged. (It shouldn't take more than 10-15 of poking around to find new ones, but if I don't post this comment fast, it will die unseen.) However, here's what Jame s E. Tillman [washington.edu] , who was
on the Viking Meteorology Science Team and was Director of the Viking Computer
Facility (at the University of Washington in Seattle) said at a national Prime
Computer Users Group meeting in Orlando FL, 1984:
"The soils will liberate oxygen"? What is the justification for this assumption. None, except for post-facto guesswork. In fact, you'll find the specific chemistry cited to 'dismiss' the experiments is inconsitent with more moderns estimates of Martian soil composition and surface dynamics. Further each of the three positive experiments (deliberately designed to complement one another and prevent error) is dismissed for a very different reason.
Finally, I think that the 'atypical' kinetics that was used to discredit one experiment (positive results as a little water was added, but later tailing off) is *exactly* what we should have expected. Water may be a limiting factor for life on mars (or it may not) but after tens of millions of years, we should expect that microscopic life in a dry part of the surface would find water toxic in excess anounts. Hence - early rapid positive results, followed by a die off.
It is also possible that there are other limiting factors to growth, so the microbes reponded positively until they hit 'the wall' on another substance... like stored short term high energy compound (e.g. ATP in earth life) or even food (quick energy foods like sugars)
I urge you to go to NASA's websites and read for yourself. This is no great 'cover-up' the info is all there for you to consider. The 'embarrassing parts' are harder to find (broken links, disappearing archives, etc,) but they are not conscientiously buried.
Re:CO2 + 2 H20 -> 2 O2 + CH4 (Score:2)
Great. Carbon Monoxide. Even worse than CO2. (I didn't believe the methane equation, anyway - it takes too much energy to create methane from its combustion products.)
For terraforming purposes, it does matter what is done with the carbon. Here on Earth, the carbon goes into making more CO2 respirators: plants. If this device releases even half as much CO as it does O2 (as the balanced equation 2 CO2 - O2 + 2 CO suggests) then it can't be used to terraform Mars. What you need is something that either creates bricks of pure carbon (a la KSR's gigantic mass spectrometer sieves... or was that Greg Bear?) or binds the carbon into a mineral like limestone (a la marine diatoms).
CO is highly poisonous to animals, even in low concentrations, and plants don't handle it well, either. This device is OK for creating an isolated pocket of O2, like a pressurized Martian habitat, but you can't Terraform the planet with it... not for human habitation anyway. And I doubt this was ever proposed, except by underinformed laymen. (Sorry Greenpeace. Find another contrived issue to protest.)
Re:So NASA's invented...Trees! (Score:2)
Allow me to summarize: Mars is not Earth.
Mars is much further away from the sun than we are here on Earth. Mars is smaller and less massive than Earth. The surface conditions are vastly different from Earth -- lower atmospheric pressure, much lower average temperature, very little water, an atmosphere composed of mostly carbon dioxide, oh and vast sand storms than can last years...
Granted, I'm no physicist, but you don't need a PhD to know O2 is lighter than CO2. Translation: Mars doesn't have the gravity to keep an oxygen atmosphere. One must also observe the laws of thermodynamics. Thus, unless this device is based in alchemy, all you'll end up with is an equally thin oxygen atmosphere (which will slowly get thinner and bleed into space) + a huge pile of carbon. As a side effect of removing the CO2, the average surface temperature will decrease as less solar radiation is trapped by the now gone CO2.
SO... let us assume we instantly convert all the CO2 on Mars into O2. You still wouldn't be able to stand out under the stars and breathe easy -- you'd suffocate and "explode".
Now, let's be reasonable; no one is suggesting terraforming Mars
(Hmm, how long before DeBeers outlaws diamond production on Mars?)
Re:What about GRAVITY?!?! (Score:3)
Re:How long before it makes Mars breathable. (Score:3)
What about volume? (Score:2)
Some people are posting regarding terraforming and clearly this device is not it. Even if it could convert the entire atmosphere to O2 there would still be a lack of atmospheric pressure. I think that large volumes of surface matter would have to be converted to gas to provide enough pressure to make the surface livable outside of a biodome.
Heh, never mind the lack of water: Mars --> Arrakis --> Dune, desert planet. Not one drop of rain on Arrakis...
This invention has been around forever (Score:4)
And in other news, a young second-grader in Arkansas has learned that trees are able to produce oxygen from taking in carbon dioxide as well! A ground-breaking coincidence? The jury is still out for all of the facts :)
Mike Roberto (roberto@soul.apk.net [mailto]) -GAIM: MicroBerto
Oxygen is for more than just breathing... (Score:5)
You don't want to breathe pure oxygen though. One good spark and your whole habitat is gone. Producing the necessary gases to mix with Oxygen (i.e. Nitrogen, some other noble gases) will be much more difficult than the production of oxygen. It may be possible to get nitrogen by mining the regolith (loose sandy topsoil on Mars).
This strikes me more as a way of producing fuel and water than as a production of breathable air, which could be better done by plants, which would also serve as food source.
One more thing... what use can be made of the carbon byproduct?
Re:Now as long as they don't crash it... (Score:2)
-aardvarko
webmaster at aardvarko dot com
CO2 + 2 H20 -> 2 O2 + CH4 (Score:3)
This would appear to depend upon getting water from Mars's surface (unless they've come up with some otehr way of doing it). IIRC, this means they have to land near the North pole.
Of course, if you want to terraform mars you need a huge amount of water - for producing the atmosphere and supporting life. If you have the water, some kind of GM algae would probably be easier than using a massive machine.
The sad things is that with NASA's budget cuts and other problems I am beginning to doubt I will see a manned mission to mars in my lifetime.
Re:My smartass comment (Score:2)
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:2)
What's wrong with it? Potentially lots of things:
There are many potential problems, sure some of these are exaggerated but just because we can do it doesn't mean we should.
Red Mars Green Mars Blue Mars (Score:4)
Before we get a lot of half-thought out replies, everybody should go out and read the series of books Red Mars [amazon.com], Green Mars [amazon.com], and Blue Mars [amazon.com] by Kim Stanley Robinson [teleport.com]. The series deals, as accurately as possible, with the colonization and terraforming of Mars. Mr. Robinson is a stickler for detail; in fact, it gets a little boring at times (I never thought I would read so much about the geology of Mars). On the other hand, he's a stickler for scientific detail, and addresses some key points, such as:
"Can we develop a reasonable atmosphere?" It's tricky--Mars's crust and elemental makeup is different, it has a low gravity, and has greater elevation variation than Earth. A good atmosphere at sea level may mean the majority of the world has an atmosphere similar to the top of Everest.
We've done some nasty stuff to Earth. Is it right to ruin the natural state of ANOTHER planet, too?
Water. Is there water on mars, anyway, and if there's not, what can we do?
Surviving in low gravity.
Lots more. In any case, I'm sure many questions will be raised by people commenting on this story. I'm just as sure that the majority of them are at least mentioned in the RGB Mars books. Go do yourself a favor if you're interested in this story, and check these books out.
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:2)
Interesting, but not enough (Score:2)
Let's not get all excited about going out and colonizing Mars now. Even if we could produce enough oxygen to breathe, it wouldn't do anyone any good. The minute you got out in the open the radiation that makes it through Mars's atmosphere would do a number on you.
Now, if NASA could put something together that would generate a thicker atmosphere for Mars...
Mars used to have a breathable atmosphere... (Score:5)
Fortunately, since O2 molecules are much more massive than He atoms or H2 molecules, the earth can also hold an O2 atmosphere. Mars is also massive enough for this, but there's a problem. Mars is not massive enough to hold oxygen atoms or ions. This is critical because of the UV radiation that the sun emits, which breaks up O2 molecules. On earth, those oxygen ions come together with O2 to form O3 (ozone) which also helps shield the rest of the atmosphere from UV radiation.
Since Mars isn't massive enough to hold oxygen ions, it can't hold them up in the part of the atmosphere where an ozone layer would likely form. Thus, its atmosphere cannot be protected from more radiation, which further ionizes the O2 molecules. This is precisely what happened to the atmosphere on mars, as well as the surface water, and it is what will eventually happen to Mars's polar ice caps. I don't know exactly what the time scale would be for creating a breathable atmosphere, and I don't know how long it would take for it to dissipate, but I think you'd have to be continually working to keep it there, assuming you had the resources to get a planet-wide breathable atmosphere in the first place.
Patent! (Score:5)
It has further advantages over the solar machine exhibited, its components are easily recycled into a number of useful objects, various parts are edible and it aids in topsoil stability. It is also capable of self-reproduction given a requisite amount of available fuel.
It also comes in numerous makes and models suitable for every task, from extremely large to the inconspicuously small.
I call it The Plant, and I would demand royalties on this inferior implementation except that..well..its obviously so inferior no-one would ever buy it.
Re:Uh One Problem (Score:2)
You also need a lot of relatively inert, large molecule gas, like Nitrogen, to prevent explosions from getting out of control. Titan has a plentiful supply of Nitrogen, but Mars has practically none.
SimEarth (Score:5)
I wouldn't say it's so worrisome. Making other planets livable for humans is going to become a fact of life if we ever decide to permanently leave this world. Mars is another system, but it's a dead system, and adapting it for human needs is not going to make species extinct or ruin our understanding of Martian phenomena (and even if it were alive, we'd have plenty of time to find out
But that's beyond the logistical nightmares of actually getting such a thing to work. Look at how long its taken our planet to register the effects of 150 years of industrial revolution, and the environmental change is a blip, an abnormality barely noticeable on the geological scale that scientists are still debating whether or not we are the cause. You can rest assured that by the time human beings are ready to purposefully alter the state of another planet's environment, they'll have the necessary expertise (and computer/robotics/cybernetic systems) to do it much more exactingly than you or I can imagine.
By the way, in the SimEarth game, the irony of it all is that once you terraform the planet (Mars was easier, Venus was much more difficult), sentient life can rise, become industrialized, and then ruin your environmental masterpiece. Maybe that should be the bigger fear, not what havoc we wreck when we purposefully change the environment, but what terrors we cause when we neglect it.
This looks like a copy of the Zubrin device... (Score:2)
All of this is described in his book, The Case for Mars, in great detail. If you're interested in the details of the chemistry involved (ie byproducts, etc, it's explained in the aforementioned book).
Terraforming the planet, by comparison, is much, much grander. As well as a very long way off. First let's concentrate on getting another probe there in one piece, eh?
Open Source! Open Source! Open Source! (Score:5)
That way ...
*ducks back into the trenches having stirred up a hornets nest of stereotypes* :)
Mars COULD hold a decent atmosphere (Score:2)
Titan has the largest atmosphere of any rocky planet in the Solar System - in fact despite the fact that Titan is around a fortieth the mass of Earth, its atmospheric pressure at the surface is 1.5 bars - that is, 1.5 times Earth's atmospheric pressure at sea level.
Since Titan is about a quarter of the mass of Mars, it is well within the realms of possibility for Mars to have an atmosphere with equivalent pressure to Earth, it just has to be a much larger atmosphere than Earth's.
Re:Cure for Global Warming? (Score:2)
The reason for all the excess CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. It would take a billion of these devices with solar panels covering the planet to make a dent into this CO2 production, with costs going into the trillions of dollars.
Why not save a few trillion dollars and reduce the delta of total entropy in the universe by using more alternative power sources in the first place? Solar panels, ocean thermal transfer, hydroelectric, wind and other alternative sources feeding giant flywheels could lower our dependence upon fossil fuels.
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:2)
Nano-technology could change this for a technological solution. Self-replicating nanorobots which feed upon the martian materials to build more of their kind would engineer the numbers of machines necessary for terraforming.
Although, this really is the same as the algae solution. In both cases we would have to essentially program the organism (lives, feeds, produces) to do its job.
Re:What about GRAVITY?!?! (Score:2)
Hey NASA, test it in some college dorm rooms first (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Inflatable Domes? (Score:2)
B.C. Place in Vancouver, B.C. is sort of like this. The roof is inflatable, yet strong enough to walk on. Plus the air pressure inside is greater than outside. (You can actually feel the wind coming out of the doors, it's hard to open them because they have to be so heavy).
I'm all for the dome thing, except radiation is another huge factor. Perhaps silver up one side?
Re:Oxygen's all well and good... (Score:2)
What the fuck are you talking about?
Give me a source or two in the very least. Ever heard of a hyperbaric chamber? Breathing pure oxygen is great for you if respiratory problems, and certainly won't harm you if you don't. Although the room may be just a little flammable at concentrations above ~30%. Oxygen only is harmful at extremely high pressures (ie, while scuba diving). Everything is dangerous at high pressure, though.------
Cautions Against Terraforming Mars (Score:2)
It seems to me that altering an entire ecosystem (even a likely dead one like Mars) could have dire consequences that we may not be foresee. Maybe there would be no detrimental effect of doing such a thing, but plopping some people on a big planet and turning it from a poisonous atmosphere into Yellowstone Park is just too great an alteration to pass without somehow negatively affecting things.
Anyway, if anyone has ideas on how that could be, I'd be interested in reading them. Sure, it's a planet out in space and changing it shouldn't have any effect because, well, it's sort of in a bubble, but I'm still curious...
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Re:What about volume? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:On a big scale? (Score:2)
Re:I don't think Terraforming is the issue here... (Score:2)
Those in the know all say that it would take an awful long time, though.
Re:Now as long as they don't crash it... (Score:2)
We need Mars in order to fuel our medical and techonological development for the next 250 years.
(or should I say 'direct' or 'focus' instead of fuel?)
After that I have no doubt that other, newer frontiers will be open for human exploration.
O2: can't live with it, can't live without it. (Score:2)
Ahhh, other ppl have a sense of humour (Score:2)
That's not the title I submitted ;) (Score:2)
My title when I submitted it was a lot less sensational - "NASA machine extracts oxygen on Mars". Theirs was definitely more of an eye-grabber though. And as for the issue of terraforming, algae or bacteria would probably do the trick as long as you set them up to feed off of native material.
Re:pleeeeease DON'T terraform Mars (Score:4)
The universe being as large as it is, if life exists on Mars, our closest neighbour, life almost certainly exists on billions of planets. (This is of course accepting the fact that recent astronomical discoveries tell us planets are by no means rare. That gas giants are common suggests rocky worlds/moons are common as well. The reason I qualify certainly with almost is because within one solar system, the planets may be able to contaminate each other - remember that Mars meteorite found in Antarctica with bacteria inside.)
I personally believe life is ubiquitous. Intelligent life is another question. It I believe to be common, but nowhere near as much so as life itself. Regardless of the frequency of intelligent life, if life in any form exists on Mars, that life isn't important as it is not the least bit unique. We see nothing on Mars but the possibility for single and possibly multicellular microscopic life. This viewpoint seems to be where we disagree. If there were complex life forms on the planet, I would agree with you in that we should leave it alone. However, there are not.
If extraterrestrial life is everywhere, it doesn't strike me as that great of a loss to perhaps exterminate or at the very least dramatically change the habitat of one planet's native bacteria. Is it that great a price to pay in order to forever alter the current situation of the human species? Right now, we have all our eggs in one basket. One catastrophe of great enough proportions, whether it be accidental or deliberate, could wipe out our entire species. I would like to alleviate that risk in as short a time as possible, whatever the cost.
Once that is done, we can pick and choose as much as the more cautious people desire. Until then though, all it takes is one mistake, one fluke chance, one random event, and we're no longer a living species. We didn't survive this long as a species by taking chances that great.
(To argue that humanity's extinction would be good is just plain silly. We're just as natural and only a couple steps up from monkeys and gorillas. If you believe that human beings are a plague on the universe, help fix the problem and kill yourself. After all... the people with the time and money to spend considering such a thing are almost always among the world's biggest consumers/polluters. When you're starving to death, you have a few more pressing concerns. Note that I don't claim to have ever been in that situation, since some like to jump on things like that.)
------
Re:On a big scale? (Score:2)
Does anyone pick up a book about terraforming Mars to listen to people argue for hundreds of pages that it shouldn't be terraformed, because it should be preserved in it's natural state?
I pick up a book for a good story, and the Mars series provided such a story. Do you think that colonizing Mars for real is going to be some kind of fairytale where everything goes according to plan and people live happily ever after?
No, personally I found the books realism was an added bonus. They wouldn't have been as enjoyable if everything went perfectly, human nature will be a huge part of the way that Mars is colonised. It's not often that I find a book that seems to cover both the scientific and the personal areas of the future in as much detail.
Re:That's not the title I submitted ;) (Score:2)
Go to bottomquark [bottomquark.com] to get the stories I've been submitting. It's another Slash site for science stories, lots of interesting stories there even if there's precious little people.