Terraform Humans First, Then Mars? 480
An anonymous reader writes "Related to the future of Mars, NASA released the transcript of an expert panel which debated terraforming the red planet. Planetary scientists including NASA's Planetary Protection Officer, John Rummel, and science fiction writers (Kim Robinson, Arthur C. Clarke, and Greg Bear) chimed in. When asked if Mars should be transformed to a place where humans could walk without life support suits ("naked"), Sir Clarke responded, "Perhaps we should ask the Martians first." Can it be done quickly-- or at all? Is terraforming ethical? If humans colonize, are the colonists on a one-way trip akin to exile?" Read on for a bit more.
"A consensus seemed to be that like waking a sleeping giant, planet building seems possible if oxygen is not a requirement and some microbial life is dormant underground. But the question of making a planet suitable for plants alone seems to span tens of thousands of years. The remaining science fiction notion was terraforming humans, instead of planets, and making us survive on what is now a very alien world."
Oxygen requirements = yes, Pressure = no. (Score:5, Informative)
In short, it would be "relatively easy" to create the amount of oxygen that would be needed for us to survive. However, the atmospheric pressure is so low that we will probably never be able to walk around the surface without some sort of protective suit (or oxygen mask).
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:science (Score:4, Informative)
If oxygen is not a requirement, (Score:3, Informative)
The interesting thing about the sulfur-based ecosystem discovered in Romania is that it was formed apparently with mutations that ocured quite fast on an evolutionary scale (thousands of years as opposed to millions).
We will obviously see a lot of mutations if we send life on an alien world. So my question is - are we gonna repeat the Australian eco-fiasco at a planetary scale ?
Re:Suggestion... (Score:2, Informative)
In addition to that, this anime is grade A production quality, and the entire thing was made by a single person in his house with his computer and other animation supplies. One guy. The original voice actors were him and his wife. It's available on DVD in the US, I highly reccomend it.
Oh yeah, as for terraforming. I ask myself one question whenever ethics are involved. Who will get hurt? For example, it is not ethical to do shoddy work if you are a contractor. Why? because you are potentially hurting people. What if that roof caves in? no good. Depending on how and why we terraform mars it may or may not be ethical. If you can do it without harming anybody who isn't consciously making a sacrifice, then it is all good. As for changing people, you are almost certain to hurt someone doing that, so its probably less ethical.
Re:Oxygen requirements = yes, Pressure = no. (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. The pressures are extremely different. The pressure on Mars is about 10 millibars, or about 1 percent of the equivalent atmospheric pressure on Earth.
At this pressure, water immediately turns to vapor. So in effect, your blood would end up boiling. Anyeurisms and things as blood vessels in your brain explode.
Deep sea diving is different in that we're piling on a lot more pressure on our bodies. It's fairly easy for our bodies to cope with more pressure. Depending on how deep you dive, the equivalent atmospheric pressure would be about 15 times greater. I'm not sure how much our bodies could sustain (just doing some simple googling on this), but that is probably near the limit.
But based on the sole fact of low pressure and lowering the boiling point of water, I'd say no.
Re:Suggestion... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Terraforming humans? (Score:3, Informative)
In Kim Stanley Robinson's spectacular trilogy, Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars, the word "areoforming" was used to describe Mars' effect on humans, or more specifically, the effect of living on Mars in isolation from earth on human society.
Re:science (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oxygen requirements = yes, Pressure = no. (Score:3, Informative)
Who said anything about .... (Score:3, Informative)
adaptation not eugenics (Score:3, Informative)
"Eugenics" [wikipedia.org] is deliberately chosing who gets to have children in order to achieve desired characteristics (eg, Nazis who wanted a "master race"). I think "biological adaptation" [wikipedia.org] (or perhaps just "adaptation") is more accurate since for example, this includes genetic engineering of both the individual's DNA and their germ line DNA in order to exist better in the environment, but you should include plenty of other possibly non-biological tricks. Eg, it may be impossible for most Martians to exist unaided in the long term Martian environment, but easily managed with various articial machines and habitats.
Re:ET, is that you? (Score:5, Informative)
The Bio-warfare attacks with smallpox laden blankets and such generally happened in the 1700's to 1750's, not the 1500's. Those people's ethics probably weren't any better than the Conquistadores, but they understood a bit more about the technical end of handleing Smallpox and other diseases. One of the most notable of these was Lord Amherst's decision to distribute blankets known to be full of smallpox, an attack which he justified in his letters and memoirs on Biblical grounds, although the second most well documented use of smallpox was at the order of a mercenary garrison commander near what is now Chicago ILL, who was a freethinker and justified it on the grounds of European racial superiority. While these two attacks are the only ones with extensive documentation made at the time by the chief perpetrators, it seems probably that there were more, ranging from a low estimate of about 10 to more than 100 depending on the historian's best guess.
"Civilizations which are limited by lightspeed..." (Score:3, Informative)
The minimum packet size over the ethernet is limited by the fact that you have to be able to detect that someone else is trying to send on a channel DURING the duration of the packet, and the latter one is limited by 'c' and maximum distance.
Paul B.
bioforming (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oxygen requirements = yes, Pressure = no. (Score:5, Informative)
Deep sea diving is different in that we're piling on a lot more pressure on our bodies. It's fairly easy for our bodies to cope with more pressure. Depending on how deep you dive, the equivalent atmospheric pressure would be about 15 times greater.
To amplify, because our bodies are made mostly of water and incompressible solids, increased pressure has very little direct effect on us. We have some internal air spaces that have to be equalized, but once that's done, increased pressure does little. In fact, the only way in which increased pressure does affect us is in that it alters the behavior of our body chemistry somewhat. At the pressures that divers go to (people have been to over 30 atmospheres, and we could probably take far more than that) the most significant change is the way in which gases dissolve and permeate our tissues.
Higher pressures causes more of a given gas to dissolve into our blood and tissues. For example, as high amounts of nitrogen dissolve into our tissues we experience a narcotic effect (called "nitrogen narcosis"). Oxygen is a highly volatile element and becomes toxic in large amounts. For this reason, very deep diving uses a lot of helium and very little oxygen or nitrogen. Lowering the percentage of oxygen in the breathing mixture keeps the amount of oxygen in the diver's body below toxic levels. Deep diving is done on oxygen mixtures that are so thin you'd asphyxiate if you breathed them on the surface.
And that leads directly to a major problem with trying to breathe on Mars. In the martian atmosphere, the pressure is so low that even if you were breathing 100% O2, you'd die of oxygen starvation.
To understand why, you have to understand a little about how mixed gases and dissolved gases behave under pressure. The key concept is called "partial pressure", and it's very simple. The partial pressure of a gas in a mixture is simply the ratio of that gas times the pressure of the whole gas. So, if you're breathing 20% O2 at sea level (one atmosphere), you're breathing O2 with a partial pressure of 0.2 atm. For convenience partial pressure of O2 is written "ppO2".
In direct correspondence to partial pressure, there's another concept called "partial tension". Tension is the measure of the "pressure" of gas dissolved in a solid or liquid. In your body, the amount of a non-inert gas, like O2, that participates in chemical reactions is directly proportional to the partial tension of that gas. In turn the partial tension of a gas in your body tissues is equal to the partial pressure of that same gas in the air you breathe (well, it's not always equal, it takes time to reach equilibrium, and some other factors mean that it's never *exactly* equal, but never mind all that). It's reasonable to just assume that, at equilibrium, ptO2 = ppO2.
So, in order to have enough O2 to function, your bodily tissues have to have a certain ptO2. Your tissues could equilibrate to the martian atmospheric pressure (assuming the boiling point of water doesn't become an issue), but you'd die because even at 100% O2 the ppO2 = 0.01 atm. IIRC, you need about five times that to function.
At the high end of pressure scales, your body can endure ppO2 of up to about 2 atm. Divers generally try to keep it below 1.6 atm, 1.4 atm is what the training agencies recommend. So, at 30 atm, breathing gas with only 1% O2 is perfectly adequate, even though you'd asphyxiate with so little oxygen at sea level. 1% O2 at 1 atm is a ppO2 of 0.01, just the same as 100% O2 at 0.01 atm, i.e. Mars.
Re:Exposure to vacuum and diastolic blood pressure (Score:3, Informative)
What this means that your blood pressure is 90 mm Hg over atmosphere pressure. If it was 1/10th of atmospheric pressure, your veins would collapse from the external pressure.
Furthermore, if your veins had less than atmospheric pressure in them, the air would be sucked in instead of blood coming out when you're cut.
All this terraforming is neat... (Score:3, Informative)
InnerWeb
Re:science (Score:3, Informative)
</pedant mode>