Mars Terraforming Debate 529
blackhelicopter writes "This Guardian article describes the implications of terraforming Mars - the subject of NASA's forthcoming debate. Quote from Dr Lisa Pratt, a Nasa astrobiologist, concerning life probably already on Mars: 'We simply cannot risk starting a global experiment that would wipe out the precious sensitive evidence we are seeking'."
Re:wonderful.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we should make a backup before we start applying patches.
I'm not very concerned with messing the precious barren desert they have going there...not as much as I am about our lush diverse ecosystem anyways.
And if there is life there, well its sure to be better suited to its native environment than what we bring along. At worst we get our first scientific data about how our bacteria interact with xenobacteria.
How life imitates art (Score:2, Interesting)
Mars gave life to earth? (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason they are not predominant to day is...
Their wildly inaccurate predictions of how long it would take for them to be able to convert our atmosphere. We are claiming decades but the realization was probably billions of years. And life on Mars slowly gave way before their world collapsed. Perhaps by a cataclysmic event or by way of nature [entropy].
Premature (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it necessarily an easy decision? Perhaps we need to debate the meta-question: Is life the only criterion relevant to whether we should muck around with a planetary system?
Re:Have not yet found life on Mars...so ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, strike that 'all' and replace with 'some select few'.
The logistics of evacuating a planet are simply near impossible. At our current population level you'd have to transport more than 1.7 million people per day, every day, for a decade. As we're rather unlikely to reach that orbital boost capacity in a very long time, if ever, the vast majority is stuck, no matter how many planets we have.
So, while your plan is nice, I suspect the massive majority of stragglers will object to the trashdumps and corpse pollution.
Die, Martians, Die. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ladies and gentlemen, get used to this statement and others like it, because you'll never here the end of it. There are just some people who will never be satisfied that the sensitive evidence they're seaking will be found, or that mars must preserved at all costs, etc, etc, etc. You think it's bad here with actual life to preserve? Let's "destroy" an entire planet!!!
It may sound incredibly callous, but if they happen to find some microbe on mars, record it, preserve it and move on with the terraforming. We've done it with dams and hydroelectric power (benefits vs. environmental preservation), so lets just nuke the icecaps and get it over with.
You start with microbes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily... (Score:3, Interesting)
If mars has life and that life has the same genetic makeup as what we have here on Earth, it does not necessarily mean that one has contaminated the other (that is a possible conclusion, even a probable one, but not the only option). Another conclusion that could be reached is that the genetic makeup we have here happens to be a particularly successful one (evolutionarily speaking), so most living organisms anywhere in the galaxy are likely to be similar to the ones we have here for that reason.
Re:Not to mention (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider Venus instead! (Score:1, Interesting)
Only think I can't figure out is how to make it spin faster so its oven-like days aren't 180 days long.
terraforming withing half a century (Score:2, Interesting)
"However, both goals - heating and thickening - could be achieved together, say researchers. One idea is to build a large mirror, many miles in diameter, and place it orbit above Mars...."
"The alternative would be to construct plants for generating super-greenhouse gases - made of complex combinations of carbon, chlorine and fluorine, and which are thousands of times more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat."
Giant mirrors? Plants? I'm amazed at the lack of reality that those scientists have with comming up ways to terraform. Am I the only one to see this? Apart from the question if and when one should terraform (see other post), it is ludicrous to propose these sorts of things. A giant mirror would take ages to build, and years untill accomplishement...plants would take centuries to have any real impact.
There is a MUCH more efficient and cheap way of terraforming, wich, strangely enough, never seems to come to the mind of those terraforming-experts: use gentically modified bacteria.
On earth, we already have bacteria who produce methane. We also have extremophiles which can endure extremely harsh conditions (as are found on Mars). Combine the two points in a gentically modified bacteria, which thrives in the martian atmosphere, and produce methane.
Since no predators, nor food shortage (at least untill the atmosphere is satured) would be present, the amount of bacteria (and thus, the producing of methane) would grow in an exponetial rate. Within 15 years, the atmosphere would contain enough methane to augment the average temperature with 3-4 degrees, enough to melt the dry-ice of the polarcaps in a permanent way.
This in turn, would augment the pressure of the atmosphere, and, combined with steadely augmenting temperature, would lead to running surface water within 50 years. (At which time, one should note, an additional large amount of gases would be released, through the reaction of the surface water (and possible rain) with the elements of the corrosive ground of Mars. The chemical reaction would lead, once again, to a considerable extra input of gases, which in turn would make the atmosphere even more thicker.
Instead of billions and hundreds of years, with this sheme, one would only need millions and decennia at most.
The additional terraforming to make it habital for open *human* life would take more time, but even here are possible shortcuts with genetically modified bacteria (for instance, if one could establish a simple biological balance between oxygen-producing bacteria and co2-producing ones in the same amount as on Earth). In any case, the use of genetically modified bacteria, that have the survival-characteristics of extremophiles, could fasten the terraforming a thousandfold, with minimal costs, compared to any other sheme I have ever seen from the so-called scientific experts.
I hereby take a patent on it
Seriously though; the concept of terraforming being extremely expensive and long-term is only true when limiting oneself to giant mirrors, putting black dust on the poles, creating massive co2-producing factory-plants on Mars and a lot of other totally unrealistic stuff that I have seen mentionned as possible ways for terraforming.
My way would be vastly cheaper and vastly more effcient/rapid.
Re:From Mike Combs' Space Settlement FAQ (Score:4, Interesting)
This planet nurtures us, protects us, and defines our very nature - and it has been doing this continuously, without much help at all, since we were drawing on cave walls. While I am all for the idea of self-sustaining artificial habitats if it can be done, it looks darned difficult to me to get the things the Earth provides, essentially free for the taking, into orbit such that they are sustainable.
Mars Has No Magnetic Shield and Cannot Support an (Score:3, Interesting)
I am merely a layman on this subject, but it seems to me that without somehow restarting the Martian dynamo to generate a global magnetic field, the idea of terraforming Mars will always remain science fiction.
With this information, it seems to me that the idea of terraforming Mars is a joke. Am I missing something?
References:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast31jan_
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3016_mag
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0012/17marsmagnet
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:4, Interesting)
what about gravity? (Score:2, Interesting)
Mars terraforming is unfortunately unavoidable (Score:2, Interesting)
The terraforming of Mars seems to be, in my opinion, unfortunately quite unavoidable, to say the very least, and that is because of all of us who are "marsaforming" Earth so well that soon we sadly will be unable to live here any more. That's very sad. It might not be a problem for us, but for our children or grandchildren.
I am sure one day someone will remember the timeless implications of our today's Slashdot discussion looking at the Mars University and will say: "Very impressive. Back in the 20th century we had no idea there was a university on Mars," to which his professor will answer: "Well in those days Mars was just a dreary uninhabitable wasteland... much like Utah. But unlike Utah, it was eventually made livable, when the university was founded in 2636." That will be a great day in our history.
I am very excited. I dream of being able to ski on Mars one day. That would be amazing. We definitely have to bring some water there and lower the temperature somehow to freeze it (we could use the process of so caled desublimacion to change the steam---a product of hydrogen and oxygen synthesis---directly into snow). That would be great. I am so excited. I haven't read such an exciting article for a long time.
first things first (Score:3, Interesting)
If we could find massive cave systems around volcanic areas, it would be even easier to build a huge contained ecosystem, since:
a) there is very little tectonic activity on Mars, if at all; and
b) whatever geothermal activity left on that planet could be used as a power source, on top of solar panels installed on the surface.
Add some nuclear power plants to the mix and you've got yourself a permanent settlement.
Re:Practice by Terraforming Earth (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow... I know there's a "disposal mentality" in our society, but throwing away this planet once we make it to others is spectacularly careless. We're going to want this planet long after it's no longer necessary for the survival of the species.
Re:The dangers of the Kyoto protocol (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow. That's surprisingly open minded of you, and bodes well for the movement. Anything that doesn't agree with your philosophy is instantly turned off without bothering to read the explanation, eigh? Where I come from, that's called fundamentalism, and is a sign of a closed mind and an indefensible intellectual predisposition.
If you had bothered to read further, you would have found that my main arguments for terraforming Mars is the potential for a greater knowledge and appreciation for environmental issues, and as a protection against potential future environmental catastrophes.
Kyoto was a compromise because it will force the closing of, for example certain broken down Russian factories where income is at a sustinence level and potential investments are nonexistent. Certain people in India eek out survival by the completely hazardous and toxic recycling and burning of computer parts. Environmental controls will put these people out of jobs in areas where there aren't any other jobs. That's a reality. That's also fair, as the environmental pollution these activities create is likely to kill more people than the activities themselves support. But to say that that is not a reality of existence in other countries is extremely close-minded.
I fashion myself an environmentalist, having bicycled more miles than many people drive and protested environmentally destructive activities. To this day I'm peeved about the importation of Snails to the North American ecology, and feel that wolves should be re-introduced into the wild. Come to think of it, I'm also a member of the Green Party. If the belief that environmentally sound activities involve compromise with people's other needs is so alien to you that you stick your fingers in your ears and go "La-la-la-la-la," then get out of my movement. That form of fundamentalism is out of touch with the experiences of most people in this world, even most environmentalists, and only serves to feed the stereotype of the lunatic fringe "greenie." A stereotype which has proven an effective weapon against us many times in the court of public opinion.
And don't post annonymously if you believe in something. Have a spine.
- Chris Canfield
Re:HOW TO BE AN AMERICAN! FUCK AMERICA! FRANCE RUL (Score:1, Interesting)
Because they didn't have anything.
We ruled them as a police state while we rebuilt them, we could have done to West Germany or South Korea what the Soviets did to their counterparts. Look for yourself!
There's a difference between ruling your own people with an iron fist and ruling a foreign country. You don't really think that Germany would let you rule them for an extended period of time, do you? If you're so knowledgeable of history, as you claim, you should know that this never worked. Even with a puppet government, as the Russians did, it never really worked and they didn't gain much from it. The US carrot-and-stick tactics pay off much better.
Morals and international law are only human inventions, and concepts that only exists thanks to the US not being a france of germany or rome or byzantium.
International law is nil if you don't follow it. And since you don't...
heh. i'm not going to accuse you of being ironic there, but maybe you should take a few history classes
History can be interpreted. Therefore, taking history classes is no substitute for thinking.
Re:Terraforming - why? (Score:3, Interesting)
But since we still can live here on earth today
... for now. Basically, we have three choices: restrict the growth of our species enough to preserve earth, start spreading out and spoiling other planets, or a combination of the two, protect the earth and start over again on other planets and treat them the right way. If a planet doesn't have a biosphere, but is capable of supporting one, I propose that "treating it the right way" is terraforming it and then preserving the terraformed version the way we should have preserved earth starting 100 years ago.
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:4, Interesting)
Similarly, human cloning needed a lot of discussion a long time before it was a practical proposition to get a feel for where the moral concensus lies. If it had been left till the technology was ready, some scientist would have just gone ahead and done it before anyone could object. Which reminds me, that was the topic of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
So, yes, let sci-fi writers ask the interesting questions, and let's have as much discussion as possible long before terraforming is possible.
Re:The dangers of the Kyoto protocol (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:3, Interesting)
The debate in question is not forming policy. It's just throwing ideas on the table. They aren't saying 'let's form a Preserve Life On Mars Society -now-!' They're saying 'so, if there is life on Mars, how should we deal with it?' This kind of debate is highly constructive, as it lays groundwork for policy no matter what information comes out later on.
Some Microbes are more equal than others, it seems (Score:3, Interesting)
'It is very depressing. Before we have even discovered if there is life on Mars - which I am increasingly confident we will find - we are talking about undertaking massive projects that would wipe out all these indigenous lifeforms, all the strange microbes that we hope to find buried in the Martian soil. It is simply ethically wrong.'
OK.... but pumping your kids full of antibiotics and blasting the kitchen counter with bleach is A-OK... RIGHT?
So, let's look at this: some subzero Martian Microbes are worth much more than some random sample of salmonella from the blue fuzzy biology experiment in the fridge that used to be a pizza a few months ago, correct?
OK. so some Martian people should get all the money and good education and fun toys. And the Earthlings? Send 'em off to extermination camps.
People:microbes - we have more in common with flatworm parasites than we do with viruses, so it's OK to kill viruses, but not flatworms?
My opinion: get over it.
1. by the time we're in ANY position to terraform Mars, we'll probably have been there several times with live human-type people and Bog knows how many R2D2 units scouring the planet for every bit of info we can get. We'll be well informed of what is actually (if anything) there.
2. Terraforming Mars is going to take centuries, and it will take trillions of dollars over that time. In the mean time here on the little green planet of clocks, we will likely be in the middle of our depopulation cycle (through war, disease, environmetal degradation, or some terrorist asshats develolping an airbourne version of HIV or who knows what...) and as the population shrinks, so will the tax base for space exploration. This will only serve to delay the terraforming further.
3. Assuming we gradually depopulate, and we don't have a glaciation in the process, (i.e. all things being roughly the same, but improving) Terraforming Mars will not be a central activity of the species, and we wll be able to monitor the progress of its development closely.
4. There is another possibility: that by terraforming mars we kick off an accelerated evolution of (whatever life there might be) on Mars. Perhaps Martian life will help in the terraforming process.
In anycase, the person who spoke the quoted line needs to get their tinfoil hat loosened. And think a bit more about what they dump on their kitchen counter.
RS
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:3, Interesting)
The point was that any decisions to be made regarding terraforming will be made decades after research on Mars.
Today's discussion will probably be as relevant for Mars as Jules Verne's books will be for Moon colonies... [ 1/2 :-) ]
OK, OK. There are scenarios where the possibility of terraforming will come quite soon after the research on Mars because of a breakthrough in some area (say, space travel gets dirt cheap, Drexler-like nanotechnology or maybe even the building of bacteria that are tough enough to work in Mars' environment of UV radiation and terrible temperatures).
But, sadly, it feels like detailed planning for what restaurants to visit if you win millions on a lottery ticket.
100 billion = cool weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to troll...but we can't spare that 100 billion because then we wouldn't have so many cool shinny things that go boom. ;-)
Better to risk an already dead planet (Score:3, Interesting)
"this planet is becoming significantly less Earth-like"
Earth changes. According to evolution it used to be a big giant block of ice. Earth has alledgedly been through a lot worse than anything man has managed to throw at it.
On the other hand, if Mars is dead, there's no harm in trying to liven it up a bit. Worst case we just make it more difficult on ourselves to make it livable. And we can learn from our mistakes so if we decide to go mucking around with Earth we aren't taking uneducated guesses about what might do what.
Ben
Re:Useless Navel-gazing (Score:2, Interesting)
> NASA, that is where the money would come from.
>
> 3) There are enough Science Fiction fans right
> now willing to colonize it.
Well, then, let all of those SF fans pay for it themselves, rather than consigning countless people to starvation, lack of education, and lack of proper medical care.
*I* am a diehard SF fan, and would jump at the chance to go...but I'd rather not go at all if it means taking funds from something as fundamentally useful, important, and morally right as providing for those less fortunate than myself.
Self assembly is the answer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why wait for nanotech to arrive? Here is the perfect opportunity to send robotic machinery, capable of building more robotic machinery. Machines whch can mine mars for raw materials. Then take those raw materials and build new robots, build human habitats, build greenhouses, build fuel manufacturing facilities, and build structure for concentrating precious commodities like water and methanol.
Because this can be done with only a couple moderately large payloads, it has tremendous feasibility advantages over trying to send spaceship after spaceship full of human operated equipment. We've already seen self assmebling robotic prototypes here on slashdot. Designing modular machines that can move/excavate/mine soil, smelt, produce glass and silicon products, and make bricks or concretes (using liquid CO2 for the liquid for the slurry), would make possible, the building of a fully operational base on Mars before we ever arrive.
This is exactly the kind of technology that could make living spaces on the moon and near earth asteroids possible. This is the best, and most economic means to begin harvesting the wealth available to us in the inner solar system.
Marie
Re:Not So Bad [OT] (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I can't think of a reason either. Which is why I as an environmentalist don't want to destroy industrialized society. I only want to sacrifice a little economic efficiency for the sake of long-term viability. And it's why I don't go making up evils as my dissenter's motivations when there are other, more rational explanations.
Go for Venus (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Our own planet (Score:4, Interesting)
How arrogant can we possibly get as to think that we have even and inkling of understanding into how the planet works on an astronomical scale?
My bio professor made a short convincing argument supporting some form of regulation of fossil fuel consumption back in '83. It boils down to this: Soon, the third world will be hopping onto the industrialization bandwagon (and that included the 1+ billion Chinese). At some point billions of tons of carbon will be added into the atmosphere. How can there NOT be climatic changes when that much chemical material is inserted into the atmosphere? (You can't be a scientist with any understanding of chemistry, physics, or ecology and not realize that.) If you live in the Gobi desert, sure, any change would be an improvement. Do you really think the US is going to improve or even retain its living conditions with global environmental change?
Re:Cognitive dissonance (Score:3, Interesting)
Since we're talking about fiction vs. real life, Robinson's Red Mars [amazon.com] has pretty much covered all aspects of the Mars colonization, I think. Blue Mars and Green Mars (the next two books in the trilogy) speculate even further into the future and build on the speculations already in Red Mars, therefore they are not so vivid.
But Red Mars has succeeded to touch on a lot of the problems Mars could offer mankind, from "who owns Mars" to "should we terraform it or preserve it for research". It's chilling to see things on paper brought to life. However, the main thing that's different from the book is that the space industry is currently not quite at the level described there, so I hope we'll get to talk about it before we start doing it. Having a set of agreements and laws ready long before the real thing comes to life is preferrable IMO.
Re:It's a futile effort... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can We Even Do It? (Score:1, Interesting)