More on the Mars Ice Cap 272
bfwebster writes "In a striking example of how a preliminary (but wrong!) scientific conclusion can persist for decades, Space.com has a story about how the south polar ice cap on Mars is mostly water, not mostly carbon dioxide (dry ice), as has been stated since the late 1960s. The new finding is based on analysis of Mars Observer readings that show that the souther polar ice cap is too warm at certain seasons to be dry ice. This finding has negative implications both for those claiming that liquid flow structures on Mars were caused by C02 instead of H20, as well as those who were hoping to use all that CO2 for terraforming."
Terrorforming...... (Score:5, Funny)
If we can't Terrorform Mars then....
The Terarrists HAVE WON!
Re:Terrorforming...... (Score:3, Funny)
--sex [slashdot.org]
Spectrometer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:5, Funny)
why not send (Score:3, Interesting)
Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't water(drinkable?) on Mars a good thing for those that want a colony? Hell, it could cool help operate a nuclear power plant and mixed with ethynol help colonist morale. Those opposed to this idea can mix methynol with the power planet's old cooling water(the stuff that's been in the inner loop for years.) Or is the camp that believes the caps are CO2(middle school science teachers) to the point of sabatauge!? Better call the probe a "welcoming guesture to aliens" and it'll get through.
BTW Mr. Watson, I did get question #3 right on the "planets quiz." I lied about my dog chewing the DB25 connector off my serial printer, so we can call it even.
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:5, Informative)
If they say 'our spectrometer says that it is water', people won't know how that works or even why they believe it. But explaining the temperature difference between CO2 and H2O to the general public is a lot easier, so that's what we hear
I think MGO has a spectrometer or two aboard...
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:4, Funny)
Hi, I am not a scientist, but I play one on T.V....
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:3, Interesting)
[TMB]
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mass?
Optical? (transmission, emission, raman, IR, UV...)
Nuclear? (alpha, beta, gamma, neutron activation,
The only spectrometry possible from the orbit is a passive one. The optical spectrum of the solid chunk of (dry)ice does not contain any characteristic lines or bands. Good luck with determining the "exact chemical composition".
Now if you had a probe LANDED on a pole than you could determine composition with almost arbitrary precision.
Those guys were obviously trying to guess composition from the orbit
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:3, Informative)
b) It's not all that flimsy. If it's too hot during some seasons for CO2 to stay frozen, the ice caps wouldn't stay frozen during those seasons if they were mostly CO2.
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:2)
If it's too hot during some seasons for CO2 to stay frozen, the ice caps wouldn't stay frozen
Given the low low atmospheric pressure on Mars and CO2's tendency to sublimate into gas, wouldn't the poles (presuming CO2 composition) simply evaporate into space?
Re:Spectrometer? (Score:5, Informative)
It's far easier to take temperature measurement using other means, and those measurements are sufficient to show that it's too warm for CO2.
I'm not positive of this, but I would guess that ground based infrared spectrometers (like what's on NASA's IRTF [hawaii.edu]) may not have the resolution nor the signal to noise capabilities to do the detection. No that I think of it, there are several plausible reasons why you can't do the detection from ground based telescopes, but I would need to check them out before sticking my neck out and posting them.
Conspiracies... (Score:5, Funny)
This just in! (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand... (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, it has positive implications for those wanting to make slurpees.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:2)
All hail! (Score:2, Funny)
Shotgun not Atlas.
Martian Vacation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Martian Vacation (Score:5, Funny)
don't worry, you still can... only now it will be immediately before you die.
Re:Martian Vacation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Martian Vacation (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey baby, want to help me heat up the planet?"
easy, easy I tells ya (Score:5, Funny)
for sufficiently large values of easy
Excellent news! (Score:5, Funny)
Now future Mars astronauts can start out their camps right; they can build a brewery to use that water!
Water is good. (Score:5, Funny)
It's pretty damn good mixed with Bourbon, too.
But... (Score:3, Informative)
However, IIRC much of the carbon dioxide on Mars is probably in the regolith rather than on the polar cap. It's just a lot harder to get to. It still might be possible to terraform Mars, but the job seems to be harder than first thought.
Re:But... (Score:2)
Of course, you'd need to pick an "earth crosser" (well mars crosser), or the energetic considerations would be a bit steep.
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
>
> Of course, you'd need to pick an "earth crosser" (well mars crosser), or the energetic considerations would be a bit steep.
Well, they've got it working for space probes. It's just a matter of scaling up. *rimshot*
Re:Water is good. (Score:2)
but of course we had to buy the cheap fridge...
That's it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's it (Score:2)
Maybe somebody should convince you that we have to prove that it'll be wortwhile to go to Mars before we pelt it with any more turk^H^H^H^Hprobes.
Interplanetary Axis of Evil! (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, really, think about it - their moons (Phobos and Deimos) - those are clearly suspicious names. (translate them for more info)
ice age party (Score:5, Funny)
Water good... (Score:2, Interesting)
QUAID! (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry karma, I just couldn't resist.
How is this important? (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that mean? Will that mean a new space initiative aimed at a manned trip to Mars? More satellites hovering over the red planet?
I guess what I'm asking: will we actually do anything productive with the news of water on Mars? If not, are we simply wasting hundreds of millions on Mars, when many other projects exist for NASA?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Terraforming Mars (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that Mars' rotation & tilt are erratic, and that's due to the absence of a regulator (large satelite).
They're erratic over timescales of hundreds of thousands of years. If we ever do terraform Mars, large swings in the axial tilt will not be on the list of things to worry about.
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:2, Interesting)
Seasons are regular changes in climate. If you have no regulation of your axis tilt, you cannot have regular chagnes, only irregular. Also, there are very very few species on earth who can tolerate irregular seasons and accompanying temperatures. Humans and plants. Even if you could make a liquid lake on mars, you couldnt get anything to live in it for the random days it boils and freezes solid. Regulation of temperature is of immense importance to terraforming.
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:2)
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:2)
I live in the temperate zone and I've been trying to get a Michelia tree to flower indoors for several years. The plant is healthy, but it needs a particular combination of tropical rainfall patterns, temperature and light at just the right time of year to flower (and thus, reproduce). If it were in Hong Kong it'd be doing that every year. Seasons are important to just about everything on earth - the fact that humans are less directly affected by them just means we're less likely to immediately notice the subtle ways they affect everybody else on the planet (many of whom we would like to eat, like french fry beasts and chocolate truffle plants).
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Moon is only about 1/81 the mass of earth (it's surface gravitational force is one sixth of Earth's) and
Mars has (rather stable) seasons (see e.g. Season on Mars [msss.com])
Re:Terraforming Mars (Score:5, Informative)
Mars has an inclination of about 25 degrees, just slightly more than us. Mars' seasons are actually more extreme than ours. It has a more eliptical orbit than Earth and makes its closest approach to the sun during Souther Summer, contributing greatly the global dust storms I'm sure you've heard about.
No, the main barrier to terraforming is the fact there's no atmosphere to speak of. In the long run, the low gravity and lack of tectonic activity will also be problems. These are major contributors to its current lifeless state.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mars Attacks! (Score:5, Funny)
Anti-Terraforming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Terraforming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it is silly to divert our attention to pipe dreams, when with a little tweaking we can make the planet we're living on a Gaia. Why would you throw away 65 billion years (or however many years life has been evolving on this old rock) to start from square one on another planet? It's just silly!
Personally, I think the idea of terraforming Mars is just another form of escapism from reality. Let's deal with where we are right now, instead of looking to far off places when there are problems in front of us. Anyone else read Charles Dickenses "Bleak House"? Mrs. Jellyby is a prime example of what we should NOT do.
Re:Anti-Terraforming? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because terraforming Mars would risk only the population of Mars (currently zero). Terraforming Earth would risk the population of Earth. The consequences of the latter are rather larger than the former.
Why can't we do both? There's no reason to trash this planet, but having another rock to go to if something goes horribly wrong seems like a wise thing to do.
$.02
-Zipwow
Re:Anti-Terraforming? (Score:3, Funny)
"Let's deal with where we are right now"
How about we use Mars to test theories we can then apply to Earth if they work?
We only get one shot with Earth. The chances are pretty endless with Mars. If solutions create problems we can then find solutions to those problems without killing millions of people and baby seals in the process.
Basically there's just a lot less to worry about if something goes wrong one mars.
"Whoops! Oh well, the place sucked anyway."
Ben
problems teriforming..bah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:problems teriforming..bah (Score:3, Funny)
Re:problems teriforming..bah (Score:2)
Isn't This Good News For Terraforming? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Isn't This Good News For Terraforming? (Score:2)
Terraforming is soooo anthropomorphic... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact of the matter is that terraforming will take centuries longer than it will take humans to exponentially evolve the technology to not even need a biologically-hospitipal waste-of-matter gravity-well to live on. We'll almost certainly be tearing planets apart [aeiveos.com] for their raw material instead of building human zoos on their surface.
Yeah... I know, talking about the accelerating rate of technological change and about "whacko" trans/posthumanism isn't as sexy as talk'n about terraforming or about meat-popsicles flying around in cool spaceships... so sue me.
--
Re:Terraforming is soooo anthropomorphic... (Score:2)
Ionosphere (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ionosphere (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, earth used to have one of these.
Re:Ionosphere (Score:4, Informative)
Mars doesn't have a strong magnetic field though. The magnetic field keeps charged particles away from the planet, which otherwise would erode the atmosphere (this is why Mars has a thin atmosphere).
Hard solar radiation does make it to the martian surface, and in the absence of ozone or another long-UV absorber, would be a problem if we ever did terraform Mars. Buy stock in ACME umbrellas now.
Dig? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dig? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not yet clear whether the interior of Mars has ANY "liquid" magma left or not. It is much smaller than Earth and has probably lost its internal heat already.
TWW
How does this prevent terraforming? (Score:4, Interesting)
So the fact that the ice caps consist of water rather than solid CO2 means nothing but GOOD!
Not only do we have something even more useful for trapping heat (if we could melt it), but we have something that Earth-based life requires quite a lot of to survive.
Strange, some of the conclusions people come to when the find that a pet project needs a slight tweak.
IMO, I see it as a much bigger problem that Mars lacks a strong, relatively-stable magnetic field. If we hope one day to live there, we don't *need* to bother making its atmosphere human-friendly, because we'd need to live a few hundred feet underground anyway to survive the constant bombardment of the surface by "hard" radiation.
Now, for a personal oddball idea, one of the science projects from the ex-Columbia inspired me. Insects need only a small fraction of the oxygen of mammals, far less water, and can survive even a hard vaccuum and fairly high levels of background radiation. The experiment with "ants in space", as covered on Slashdot a couple weeks ago, led me to wonder, why don't we just ship a few dozen different insect colonies to Mars and let *them* terraform it? Ants apparently do much better in lower gravity, they "farm" aphids and fungus (of which some strains could conceivably survive on the chemical-energy-bearing soil on mars, thus providing food for the ants), they clean their own microenvironment... Perfect for what we need. Let the little guys build up Mars' biosphere for a few decades, then other introduced organisms would have a much better chance for survival.
Re:How does this prevent terraforming? (Score:4, Informative)
In any case, it would take more than ants, and a helluva lot longer than a few decades to change the environment on Mars into one we could use.
Not sure about the issue of radiation... there may be a way to have a thick atmosphere that shields the surface enough. I don't think normal radiation within the solar system is really that bad, it's the solar storms that getchya.
One other note: just because the polar caps aren't made of dry ice, doesn't mean there isn't a significant amount of CO2 and carbon locked into the regolith, and in the water itself. But yeah, there are much better gases for terraforming if you want to "Greenhouse" a bit. CFCs for example.
Re:How does this prevent terraforming? (Score:4, Informative)
To transplant an Earth-type ecology, you're going to need remarkably Earthlike conditions, and this is probably unfeasible. What people have looked at is importing something like (what they envision as) primordial Earthlike conditions and letting it stew for a few hundred (or thousand) years. The interesting thing to me is that this is still called "terraforming", when what comes out of it really won't really be Terran - it'll be novel. The starting factors would likely be genetically engineered, and if there's success it'll be through rapid adaptation. The life you get is pure Martian. Just as Ray Bradbury observed.
Terraforming could also use CO2 in soil... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mars also contains CO2 in its soil. This is in two forms: (1) CO2 directly adsorbed onto the (porous) rocks and dirt, and (2) CO2 in ice form mixed into the soil, possibly mixed with water ice as well.
Read here [spacedaily.com] to learn more.
The extent of these soil deposits is almost completely unknown and difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, if the surface temperature were raised then some portion of this trapped CO2 would outgas. (This would be akin to obtaining liquid/vapor water by heating a section of Siberian permafrost.) Because CO2 is such a good greenhouse gas, there might therefore exist a temperature threshold beyond which the outgassing of CO2 and subsequent greenhouse heating would push the planet into a self-sustaining "hot" mode.
Or it may be the case that too much of the CO2 on Mars has either been lost to space, or is chemically locked up in carbonate rocks. This is a numerical question that won't get answered until we have the ability to bore into the surface and measure the free CO2 content.
I'm personally doubtful of these "heat it up and it will automatically fix itself" scenarios. If Mars did sustain a liquid water ocean at some point (an amazingly we still don't know the answer to that for sure), then something dramatic must have happened to make it shift into the cold, dry climate that exists today. My likeliest candidate would be the cooling and freezing of the planet's core, and the subsequent cessation of volcanic activity. Without volcanos, CO2 gets locked up in carbonate rocks and it never cycles back into gaseous CO2. The same thing could happen to the Earth someday, but fortunately the Sun will have long since gone supergiant and vaporized us in our tracks.
God is not a geek? (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno, God sounds pretty geeky to me. And what's wrong with that anyway?
Re:God is not a geek? (Score:2)
Just to be clear: God got a little carried away on this one; when all was said and done, there ended up being about 12 orders of magnitude more than that.
The object of the game (Score:3, Interesting)
Send autonomous construction robots to Mars.
Use the native materials to build enourmous castles.
Pressurize the castles for humans.
Terraforming would take too long to be any use.
Speculation of the Star Trek generation (Score:2, Interesting)
Hopefully, at one point, we will be able to do this, but by the time we are capable of doing such, I'm almost CERTAIN we'll have a better technology than using the icecaps anyway!
One suggestion has been to make absolutely certain the planet contains no life (which is doubtful it does) and then nuke the entire planet in strategic places causing a nuclear winter and possibly even creating a magnetic atmosphere that will hold in more gases and atmospheric components. To spread algae in a blanket over the planet and other life to evolve and create "semi-artificial" biospheres is probably a good technique.
BUT, again, while it's nice to speculate about terraforming, remember we are at LEAST 15 years away from a manned mission and probably over a century away from a colony, then two centuries from having the ability to take on something like this, and by then, we will most likely be able to snap our fingers and terraform the planet.
The 'Greenhouse Effect' (Score:4, Insightful)
The people in this forum who deny the 'Greenhouse Effect' (and whenever there's an article about the environment, there are plenty saying things like "We don't have enough data..." or "It's a bit arrogant to think that man can have an effect on the environment..." or "It's bad science...") how come they don't they come out and blast the science of terraforming a planet like Mars?
Environmentalists on Mars. . . (Score:2)
I don't believe in 'Mars'.
We don't have enough data. .
It's a bit arrogant to think that man can say with any authority that other planets exist.
It's bad science.
I mean, really. Nobody can prove it to me! I have a perfectly logical explanation for all of the so-called, 'Data'.
--Seriously, I keep thinking I ought to make a website where I 'debunk' standard beliefs just to demonstrate how retarded skeptics actually are. "Oh, you had another so-called, 'Dream' did you. . ? And what proof can you offer us?"
-Fantastic Lad --La La La, I can't hear you!
Denying the Greenhouse Effect (Score:3, Informative)
I can't speak for all of the anti-Greenhouse Effect folks, but the biggest problem that I have with it is that the whole debate is too politically charged, with scientists doing research with pre-conceived results, questionable sponsors, and a focusing too narrowly one just one or two root causes to the problem. Don't blast me here, because I've spent too much time with real researchers fighting for grants, tenure, publication, conference presentations, and all of the other acedemic BS that almost makes a mockery of science. Despite all of that, there are people who are genuine in their desire to do scientific research, but a real question has to be asked if they are getting lost in the background noise of simple charlitains who are trying to find a way to get a quick buck...by faking science or simply being lazy because they don't care.
I also say that Mars is a good example of what is going to be required to prove the "Greenhouse Effect" on a planetary scale, because it will prove on a planetary scale what kinds of activity is going to be required in order to actually affect the environment. If it is going to be so difficult, then it will be hard on the Earth. The opposite is also going to be true.
In other words, terraforming Mars would be the real final proof that massive industrial activity really has an effect on the whole planet. And if we succeed at warming up Mars by 10-20 degrees, it will be a useful alternative to Earth if we really are screwing it up permanently.
More on the Mars Ice Cap (Score:3, Funny)
First it was microbes. . . (Score:2)
And the hint of monoliths all along. .
They are quietly, steadily warming the public so that all the fragile little human brains won't "Pop" when the aliens tap you on the shoulder one day and say,
"Stick 'em up!"
-Fantastic Lad --"Pathetic Hoo-Mahn!"
So you want to terraform? Why not... (Score:2)
Just for the challenge?
I think a more practical alternative to Mars is Venus. Plenty of solar radiation, atmosphere (lots) and closer to Earth than Mars.
Ok - so the atmosphere is hot, high pressured and toxic. Isn't that what bio-tech should be for? Breed some bugs (make it sound easy don't I?) to do the dirty work (turn the noxious stuff into solids so it drops from the atmosphere), land and conquer.
Major problem is that Venus may well be geologically active in a major way (cooling core could be causing slabs of crust to drop - 50km*50km type size dropping ~1km down - this is a possible explanation for some of the possible recent resurfacing events on the Venusian crust).
Venus is easier once you tame the atmosphere, you can make an atmosphere on Mars but it will still bleed off as the rock is too small. So if you take 1000 years to make Mars work, in ten times that long you will have to have Plan B for the atmosphere working.
Why not terraform Mars? (Score:2)
Blatant Ignorance (Score:2)
Just like there's only one "Solar System". OURS. Why? Because the sun's freakin' name is SOL.
Dubya (Score:3, Funny)
I guess we'll just have to make our green-house effect the old fashioned way. Can we send Texas to Mars?
Nitrogen is the real problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Odyssey + Global Surveyor, not Observer (Score:3, Informative)
Forgive the nitpick, but the Mars Observer wasn't involved in this. It was a combination of data from Mars Odyssey and Mars Global Surveyor. Observer isn't even mentioned in the article...gotta proof-read those submissions, folks. :-)
Contact was lost [nasa.gov] with Observer shortly before it was to enter orbit around Mars.
See JPL/NASA for more information on the 2001 Mars Odyssey [nasa.gov] and Mars Global Surveyor [nasa.gov]
Re:first spacecraft on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
The Mariner series of spacecraft went to Mars around that time period. I can't find a successful one in 1966, though. Here's the list:
Re:first spacecraft on Mars (Score:2, Informative)
Re:first spacecraft on Mars (Score:2, Informative)
Mariner 4 was launched at the end of 1964. 1965 is the date of the actual flyby.
Re:first spacecraft on Mars (Score:4, Informative)
Launch: June 14, 1967
Flyby: October 19, 1967
Mass: 245 kilograms (540 pounds)
Science instruments: Ultraviolet photometer, cosmic dust, solar plasma, trapped radiation, cosmic rays, magnetic fields, radio occultation
Didn't the Russians land a craft on Mars too? (Score:2)
Vostock 2 or something?
So in this case, in Soviet Russia, Mars probes YOU.
or something..
Re:This is actually good news (Score:4, Informative)
Now if you could use your analogy between Earth temperature differences between polar and American regions, then the calculation would be more like this: -3 to 26 is a difference of 29, so instead of -60 at the Martian south pole, we can expect -31 at some American landing site. Of course, if we had picked the average summer temperature in Mecca, that would suggest we could find a better landing site on Mars where it would be warmer.
So all these calculations are bunk, or I'm totally confused.
Re:This is actually good news (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is actually good news (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is actually good news (Score:4, Insightful)
In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. Therefore... in the old Silurian Period the Mississippi River was upward of one million three hundred thousand miles long. Seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Mississippi will only be about a mile and three-quarters long.
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such a wholesome return of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Mark Twain
^^^ Just about says it all about this bit of reasoning, don't you think?
Terraforming is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is why Terraforming is good. It turns an otherwise dead planet into a living one. Think beyond us mere humans, and thing of life as a whole and what it has done since its beginnings billions of years ago - life expands to fill every available niche. Life has expanded and become the massive and complex biosphere that it is today. Life has also experienced numerous near total extinction on numerous occasions. Life has now finally gained the capability of leaving its womb planet and expanding outwards to other worlds.
Of course we are talking about life expanding onto other worlds as long as there is no pre-existing life, especially complex life there already. As long as Terraforming meets those ethical requirments I have yet to hear a single reason not to terraform. After all we are only talking about the perpetuation of life itself. I almost would be bold enough to say, "that if you are against terraforming, then you are basically against life itself".
Planet P Blog [planetp.cc]
Re:Terraforming is good. (Score:5, Interesting)
You're presupposing that "life" is inherently "good". Most gases expand to fill every available niche, too. So wouldn't vaporizing Mars be just as "good" as terraforming it? I mean, look beyond us mere humans. Think of all that interstellar hydrogen. Shouldn't we be devoted to making more of, rather than locking it up in our puny ecosystems, which are so limited and meaningless on a truly cosmic scale?
Seriously, though, if "life" is just the mindless expansion of a system to fill every niche, then terraforming is neither "good" nor "bad"--it just is. By your logic, the question isn't "why should we terraform Mars", the question is... well, there is no question. We will terraform Mars, because that's what "life" does. Terraforming is no more "good" than supernovas are "good", or the Second Law of Thermodynamics is "good".
I may be against terraforming not because I'm against life, but simply because I'm against this idea of life as mindless, cancerous Yog-Sothothery. If life is "good", it has to come up with a better reason for its actions than that. And if it can't, if life just is, then it needs no reasons at all, and this discussion is meaningless.
Re:Terraforming is good. (Score:2)
Don't worry about refuting this guy's arguments--evolution will eventually refute them for you.
I'm assuming of course, that his apathy translates into a lack of action. It need not translate into a total lack of action. Simply procreating and colonizing a little bit less is enough to give enthusiastic parents and colonizers the edge.
Re:Terraforming is good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, then how do you propose to 'terraform' mars, or have you been watching too much discovery channel. Just flick a switch huh.
In addition, life on earth has developed over billions of years and is a function of the raw materials and magnetic, geologic, and atmospheric parameters of earth. Mars didn't just show up yesterday. If life was able to develop on mars, with its characteristics, it would have already. If you want to seed it with life from earth, thats already been done with space probes.
Re:Terraforming is good. (Score:3, Interesting)
Life begets life, just because it does. That doesn't make it a moral imperative to spread an reproduce (even if you're a fundamentalist christian, it actually only says "spread across the EARTH" or something equivalent). We have a choice of where and whether we should go. For instance, it would probably be naughty to go terraform Europa, but you might say the same of anywhere. Who's to say there won't be like on Mars one day? Maybe the swelling, dying sun will warm it enough for a whole new biosphere to evolve - unless we get there first and reshape it in our own planet's image. There are niches at all points in the future - which ones should we fill and which should we leave alone?
I don't really have an opinion on that, just offering it up.
Re:Terraforming is good. (Score:3, Insightful)
I see milleniums full of humans reproducing the earth on dead planets throughout the universe. We've just got to make sure the earth doesn't die during child birth.
Re:This is good news for terraforming mars (Score:4, Insightful)