NASA's Retiring Top Scientist Says We Can Terraform Mars, and Maybe Venus Too (nytimes.com) 159
"Since joining NASA in 1980, Jim Green has seen it all," writes the New York Times.
He has helped the space agency understand Earth's magnetic field, explore the outer solar system and search for life on Mars. As the new year arrived on Saturday, he bade farewell to the agency.
Over the past four decades, which includes 12 years as the director of NASA's planetary science division and the last three years as its chief scientist, he has shaped much of NASA's scientific inquiry, overseeing missions across the solar system and contributing to more than 100 scientific papers across a range of topics... One of Dr. Green's most recent significant proposals has been a scale for verifying the detection of alien life, called the "confidence of life detection," or CoLD, scale. [Green says scientists have to "stop screwing around with just crying wolf."]
Green has also published research suggesting it's possible to terraform Mars with a giant magnetic shield blocking the sun (to stop it from stripping the Mars atmosphere and creating habitable temperatures).
"Yeah, it's doable," he explains to the Times:
"Stop the stripping, and the pressure is going to increase. Mars is going to start terraforming itself. That's what we want: the planet to participate in this any way it can. When the pressure goes up, the temperature goes up... If you didn't need a spacesuit, you could have much more flexibility and mobility. The higher temperature and pressure enable you to begin the process of growing plants in the soils.
"There are several scenarios on how to do the magnetic shield. I'm trying to get a paper out I've been working on for about two years. It's not going to be well received. The planetary community does not like the idea of terraforming anything.
"But you know. I think we can change Venus, too, with a physical shield that reflects light. We create a shield, and the whole temperature starts going down."
Over the past four decades, which includes 12 years as the director of NASA's planetary science division and the last three years as its chief scientist, he has shaped much of NASA's scientific inquiry, overseeing missions across the solar system and contributing to more than 100 scientific papers across a range of topics... One of Dr. Green's most recent significant proposals has been a scale for verifying the detection of alien life, called the "confidence of life detection," or CoLD, scale. [Green says scientists have to "stop screwing around with just crying wolf."]
Green has also published research suggesting it's possible to terraform Mars with a giant magnetic shield blocking the sun (to stop it from stripping the Mars atmosphere and creating habitable temperatures).
"Yeah, it's doable," he explains to the Times:
"Stop the stripping, and the pressure is going to increase. Mars is going to start terraforming itself. That's what we want: the planet to participate in this any way it can. When the pressure goes up, the temperature goes up... If you didn't need a spacesuit, you could have much more flexibility and mobility. The higher temperature and pressure enable you to begin the process of growing plants in the soils.
"There are several scenarios on how to do the magnetic shield. I'm trying to get a paper out I've been working on for about two years. It's not going to be well received. The planetary community does not like the idea of terraforming anything.
"But you know. I think we can change Venus, too, with a physical shield that reflects light. We create a shield, and the whole temperature starts going down."
English, it's hard (Score:3, Informative)
...to stop it from stripping the Mars atmosphere and creating habitable temperatures
That's not even a garden-path sentence, it's just plain wrong. Unless we really want to stop the sun from creating habitable temperatures? A correct sentence, if still difficult to read, would be: "...to stop it from stripping the Mars atmosphere and to create habitable temperatures".
Editors are supposed to catch this kind of stuff. Assuming, of course, they passed undergrad English.
spoiler alert (Score:2)
Assuming, of course, they passed undergrad English.
They didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, and as feasible as the next ISS (Score:3)
The ISS is old and creaking on all its joints.
The astronauts are doing more maintenance than science.
The first module was launched in 1998, and the station has now 16 pressurized modules, and has sleeping stations for 7 astronauts.
23 years for 16 pressurized modules and 7 long-term bunks for astronauts.
And 160 kW of maximum power.
A device generating a planet-sized magnetic field will take us a million years.
Re:Interesting, and as feasible as the next ISS (Score:5, Insightful)
The money would be far better spent terraforming Earth. Remove some of the CO2 from the atmosphere and make it habitable again.
Re: (Score:3)
"We can terraform Mars... and VENUS!"
Buddy? We can't even terraform TERRA.
Re:Interesting, and as feasible as the next ISS (Score:5, Insightful)
The money would be far better spent terraforming Earth.
The scientists want to terraform Mars into Earth because we're currently terraforming Earth into Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
you mean marsforming earth into mars ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Interesting, and as feasible as the next ISS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A device generating a planet-sized magnetic field will take us a million years.
I'm not sure of the power requirements for L1 dipole scheme yet 1T can easily be done with normal superconductors. The Japanese paper that looked into doing this by building superconducting rings around the planet estimated about 1GW per ring.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea regarding Mars is actually to have a small satellite in L1 (is it L1? Ah, it is L1) between Mars and the Sun.
No GWs or super conductors needed.
Re: (Score:2)
hey, this is nasa's "top retiring scientist"! show some respect!
his paper should be made into a nft or something ...
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is selection bias. If you send people to Mars, they will self-select to be enduring and part of such efforts to create a better environment, finding a harmony under harsh conditions. This would become an ethos for their offspring even without really a propaganda machine because the kids would see every adult around them working this way. As such while I can't say how many generations this would last, without essentially some "social policy" that enforces such an ethos, there would likely be m
Re: Interesting, and as feasible as the next ISS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intersting typo: Heinlein vs. Heiland :P
Re: (Score:2)
>The difference is selection bias. If you send people to Mars, they will self-select to be enduring and part of such efforts to create a better environment, finding a harmony under harsh conditions.
Could you expand on what you mean by "they will self-select" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Only the most Mars-worthy would fuck. It's beautifully Darwinian.
Venus has more problems than just the temperature (Score:2)
Creating a giant sunshade for the planet is all well and good, but how do you get rid of the 93 bars of surface pressure? And atmosphere full of corrosive elements?
If anything, the planet should first be made even hotter (so that atmosphere would boil off into space). Of course, there are some scenarios where instead of living on the surface, you'd instead have these giant airships floating in places where the pressures are more tolerable...but in such a scenario, why go there at all?
Re:Venus has more problems than just the temperatu (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Send up a few sacks of bicarbonate, job done.
Re: (Score:3)
Creating a giant sunshade for the planet is all well and good
It is not a sunshade. It is a magnetic shield: A superconducting dipole at the Martian L1.
Here is the proposal [nasa.gov]
Disclaimer: I think this is nuts. O'Neill Cylinders [wikipedia.org] make much more sense for off-Earth colonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a giant sunshade for the planet is all well and good
It is not a sunshade. It is a magnetic shield: A superconducting dipole at the Martian L1.
Here is the proposal [nasa.gov]
Disclaimer: I think this is nuts. O'Neill Cylinders [wikipedia.org] make much more sense for off-Earth colonies.
He was referring to the plan for Venus, not the plan for Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a giant sunshade for the planet is all well and good, but how do you get rid of the 93 bars of surface pressure? And atmosphere full of corrosive elements?
If anything, the planet should first be made even hotter (so that atmosphere would boil off into space). Of course, there are some scenarios where instead of living on the surface, you'd instead have these giant airships floating in places where the pressures are more tolerable...but in such a scenario, why go there at all?
If you block all solar energy from reaching Venus then on the order of 1000 years the atmosphere will condense into oceans of liquid carbon dioxide. You build two polar dykes to impound the CO2, then pump the liquid CO2 to create two polar CO2 oceans.
A problem though is that every bit of the crust is at 464 C or hotter, so there will be an enormous heat outflow from the surface basically forever (on human timescales) which must be disposed of and also makes the crust quite plastic.
The oceans will be quite d
We have prior experience (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - I'm often annoyed by the "we need to solve our problems back home before we go to space" sentiment, but in this case: unless we can sequester all CO2 we've added to our own atmosphere its not even worth thinking about terraforming another planet. It's the same type of task but on a scale that is trivial by comparison - and we can't do it yet.
It's like a guy who can't put together an Ikea desk dreaming about hand-building an apartment building.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say more like a skyscraper. By hand and AND without funding.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of zero sum thinking is what keeps us in the dark ages.
"We shouldn't go to space until we solve world hunger!" :"We shouldn't do science until we achieve world peace!"
This is a classic false dilemma fallacy.
We can certainly do both.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally I would agree with you. But in this case, it is different. It is not saying we shouldn't go to space until we solve world hunger. It is saying we shouldn't consider planet wide atmospheric manipulation on another planet until we can figure out planet wide atmospheric manipulation on earth.
I mean, we've figured out how to manipulate the planet wide atmosphere for the worse as an accidental side effect of modern civilization, but we still don't have a clue how to intentionally improve a planet's atm
Re: (Score:2)
Not just technical problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignoring for the moment the technical problems, I'd like to rise the political-economical ones.
Who's going to pay for that? The costs will be huge. Will the countries paying for that shield "own" Mars? Who will control that shield? Will other countries settle in Mars profiting from the shield? Will they have to pay fees to the shield maintainers? Or perhaps better called protection-money (You know, is a nice little colony you've got there, it would be a pity if something happened to the atmosphere around it) Would anybody want to live in a planet where the livability is linked to a human-created device? Would bombing / lasing the shield become a realpolitik option?
I don't think humanity is remotely ready to make reality a project like that.
Re: Not just technical problems (Score:4, Interesting)
I realize this is not the same, but consider Phoenix...
It would kill the majority of residents without man made devices bringing water in, generating electricity, cooling them...
a personal/small space craft capable of getting you to Earth would be the equivalent of the car that most people would use as an escape plan from Phoenix if the power/water were out during summer.
While Mars is not as intrinsically safe, but it does share common issues with many places we've settled on Earth.
Hell most of Canada would probably be dead in their winter if power/fuel stopped for an extended period... or they'd all evacuate to somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, sure, but in "unlivable" places on Earth a) you don't have a single point of failure, and b) you can migrate fast if something happens
That said, I don't have any idea of how fast would the situation deteriorate from solar radiation / atmosphere degeneration if the magnetic shield was destroyed.
Pre-modern people lived in these places (Score:3)
Of course pre-modern people lived in all of these places so none of what you've said holds up.
Escape from Phoenix (Score:2)
I think I have a plot idea for that scifi disaster script I've been wanting to write.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think humanity is remotely ready to make reality a project like that.
Imagine a future of self-replicating autonomous robotic spaceships that mine asteroids, converting their raw materials into planetary space shield components. In 2020, worldwide motor vehicle production was about 78 million (!). Think how many self-assembling robots could be constructed if raw materials and an untiring labor force were free and limitless. The only thing us meatbags would have to do is orchestrate the operation-- and much of that can be automated.
Re: Not just technical problems (Score:2)
If such a device were created and installed an apt name would be the Green Machine, for its creators last name, and for turning the plane green.
Wy terraform it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Leave the surface alone. The lava tubes on Mars will each have surface areas comparable to Britain. To utilize, you need only seal at two points and pressurise a volume you can specify at the time, allowing you total control over costs. You then create additional segments as needed. This is much more manageable as you're likely to want to experiment with colonising with very small numbers initially. Why alter a planet at vast expense for the benefit of maybe 200 people?
If it goes well, and it is unproven that it would, you've space for hundreds of millions without touching the surface. And once you've tens or hundreds of millions there, let them decide what to do with the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave the surface alone. The lava tubes on Mars will each have surface areas comparable to Britain. To utilize, you need only seal at two points and pressurise a volume you can specify at the time, allowing you total control over costs. You then create additional segments as needed. This is much more manageable as you're likely to want to experiment with colonising with very small numbers initially. Why alter a planet at vast expense for the benefit of maybe 200 people?
If it goes well, and it is unproven that it would, you've space for hundreds of millions without touching the surface. And once you've tens or hundreds of millions there, let them decide what to do with the surface.
All of this. This is the only sensible response tbh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why terraform it?
Planets regularly experience asteroid impacts that wipe out 99% of life on it. Not wanting to go extinct because a rock was destined to run into our home is a sane thought.
The lava tubes on Mars will each have surface areas comparable to Britain. To utilize, you need only seal at two points and pressurise a volume you can specify at the time, allowing you total control over costs.
This also does nothing to help the vast thermal swings that occur on Mars because of it's thin atmosphere.
Why alter a planet at vast expense for the benefit of maybe 200 people?
The idea behind terraforming is to create an inhabitable world for all of humanity, not "maybe 200 people". This is would just be the first step of a much larger project.
Re: (Score:2)
Planets regularly experience asteroid impacts that wipe out 99% of life on it. Not wanting to go extinct because a rock was destined to run into our home is a sane thought.
So being deep underground rather than on the surface offers a considerable advantage, in that you need a direct impact on the lava tube (as opposed to a direct hit anywhere on the planet) to be a serious threat. Further, since you're looking at segmented environments, acting like bulkheads, the worst that even a truly massive impact can do is destroy two segments. It will have minimal effect on the rest of the lava tube and no effect at all on the others.
This also does nothing to help the vast thermal swings that occur on Mars because of it's thin atmosphere.
You're in a thermally isolated pocket deep undergroun
Idea here: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we terraform earth first? (Score:2)
Before we entirely fuck the place?
First (Score:2)
Pipe dream of some scientist... Reality is : (Score:2, Interesting)
No natural process that transformed our planet (barring asteroid collisions) happened in less than 100,000 years. What we call the "Cambrian Explosion" actually was spread over 10 million years.
Carbon that was sequestered from the atmosphere over 100 million years, a period when there were no microbes capable of digesting wood or even the soft bod
Fascinating - but curious about the requirements (Score:2)
This being said, I can only find mention of "The shield structure would consist of a large dipole—a closed electric circuit powerful enough to generate an artificial magnetic field." . But how large should this be have the desired effect? It would be immense, like the size of a country, is what I expect.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, if he can describe a plausible way (even with future tech) to construct such a dipole then I will be interested in the idea.
For comparison, although we can't do it yet, constructing a solar shield for Venus is relatively easy to imagine - if you can make a single device that is positioned just inside the orbit of Venus, traveling at sub-orbital speed, but maintained in position by the solar radiation pressure, then you just make a lot of them to provide complete screening. Modular approaches are inhe
Venus is easier to colonize (Score:5, Interesting)
Compared to Mars, Venus is paradise. On Mars the gravity is likely to low for humans to live long term. You need meters of protective radiation shielding above you most of the time. To go outside you need a suit that provides heating and pressure, a suit that you have to thoroughly clean on reentry because the soil on Mars is toxic even in tiny quantities. Solar energy will be 1/4th that of Earth and gathering the elements for life from the soil and atmosphere will be orders of magnitudes more difficult than on Venus.
Re: (Score:3)
Long days (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Venus is easier to colonize
Sure but that's only a short-term goal.
On Mars the gravity is likely too low for humans to live long term.
Well this is a huge assumption because Mars has a decent amount of gravity. Frankly, I think it's like that native martians would be just fine with the gravity while visiting earthlings may have issues with time. If there are issues, they are likely to start clearing up within 10 generations. Evolution happens rapidly when it must.
You need meters of protective radiation shielding above you most of the time.
You do realize the magnetic shield they talk about solves that problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize the magnetic shield they talk about solves that problem, right?
That's a rather hard chicken and egg problem. You need a colony to build this giant shield but to have the colony you need the shield. Unless you think the Earth and Venus tax payers will build it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Pff... it's a satellite. We already send those to Mars, so why would you think it need to be made on or launched from Mars? We might just build it purely to enable colonization without needing to send extra shielding. Depending on how it works out, it could be money saver, no chickens or eggs involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can bioengineer a lifeform that eats those H2SO4 clouds and and precipitates the S and creates lots of H2O and O2. There's also the fact that Venus' atmosphere is something like 96% CO2. Maybe once we figure out what to do with our catastrophic 412.5 PPM of CO2 here, we can address that as well
We should first explore and document the existing environment. It would be a shame to destroy life there if it ex
One thing ? (Score:2)
Very interesting and hope it can work, but that brings up a couple of things:
First I never understood why Mars lost its Atmosphere but Venus kept theirs. Venus does not have a Magnetic Field but has a very thick atmosphere and is much closer to the Sun. Yet it is able to keep its Atmosphere while Mars lost it. I did a number of searches over the years but I could not find an answer. All the science says Mars lost it due to the Sun.
Second, after thousands of years lets pretend Mars is terraformed, what m
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should work on your search skills; I found the answer for you with one Google search (venus magnetosphere). Here you go [aasnova.org]; look at the paragraphs under With a Little Help from the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can do a lot of things that we shouldn't (Score:2)
Right.... (Score:2)
We've already terraformed Earth. Look how well that turned out.
Maybe what we need first is huma-forming.
Of course (Score:2)
As soon as I saw the Mars atmosphere loss data some years back, then noted how earth's atmosphere is protected by our own magnetism, the synthetic magnetosphere concept hit me like a bag o' bricks. This is the very foundation of any terraforming effort. With out it, its just pissing in the wind. Li
Re: (Score:2)
We easily have this capability right now. In a bit of irony, it would take a few 1 Tesla magnets in orbit.
Show your work, how a) this would suffice to shield Mars, and b) how we have this capability right now.
Green describes [usra.edu] a shield that is in the Mars L1 position (320 Mars radii away), not in orbit and has no description of how this magnetic field would be generated. Both he, and you, need to at least sketch in a plausible manner how such a thing can actually be made. I suspect his description of what is necessary to block the solar wind is more reliable than your notion of just putting some magnets in orbit
Re: (Score:2)
We easily have this capability right now. In a bit of irony, it would take a few 1 Tesla magnets in orbit.
Show your work, how a) this would suffice to shield Mars, and b) how we have this capability right now
We can place satellites in orbit around Mars, we can outfit them with Tesla strength permanent magnets, and we can place them where we wish. I'm not certain what "work" there is to show. Will NASA's work suffice? https://phys.org/news/2017-03-... [phys.org]
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/... [nasa.gov]
https://www.sciencealert.com/n... [sciencealert.com]
By we, do you mean Space-X? (Score:2)
Haha. (Score:2)
Another genius who believes there is an infinite supply of other people's money.
Toxic soil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When "an inconvenient fact seems to be lost on ... everyone" maybe it's not actually a fact.
There are places on Earth with higher percentages of perchlorate in the soil, and we have hardly explored Mars enough to say that they exist "throughout the Martial soil," much less at a "high level."
Perchlorates are a mild concern, not a show-stopper.
If you can terraform Venus.. (Score:2)
If you can terraform Venus, that implies to me that you can terraform Earth. So you're going to be a trillionaire (or at least permanently famous) since a fuckton of voters have been asking for that lately. That is, unless, you can't really do it.
Terraform Terra first (Score:2)
I really appreciate it when people think big.
But I'd like to ask Jim Green whether he has any ideas how we could terraform Terra. Specifically, return the atmosphere to the state needed for a long-term thermodynamic equilibrium. And maybe also resolve some other, comparatively minor problems.
Given that we already have 9 billion people on this planet who could potentially work on such a project (compared to zero on Mars), terraforming Terra should be several orders of magnitude easier than terraforming Mar
Not So Hard, Expensive, or Time Consuming (Score:2)
It always boggles my mind how so many people look at problems in such simplistically erroneous ways as to make arguments like, "Do you realize how hot it is on Venous?" or, "It's filled with poisoneous gases.", or even "You cannot even breath there!". Like we don't know these things?
The magnitude of something may or may not be relevant to given solution. Sometimes, we can find simply solutions that work around seemingly impenetrable obstacles like, not being able to smash through a brick wall so we just,
We can't even Terraform Earth (Score:2)
What fucking chance do we have if we don't even start off with a habitable world?
What to name the first new colonies on those plan? (Score:2)
On Mars: Muskville.
On Venus: New Scottsdale.
Re: (Score:3)
Compared to Venus, Mars is a walk in the park. Mars temperature is in the realm of feasibility (+20 to -73 Celsius at equator, we have villages in Siberia where -50 Celsius is a relatively common occurrence and the record on Earth stands at some -80 Celsius).
Meanwhile, Venus is thought to have a temperature of 450 Celsius.
Re: (Score:2)
Siberia has oxygen.
Re: I have my doubts... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to Venus, Mars is a walk in the park. Mars temperature is in the realm of feasibility (+20 to -73 Celsius at equator, we have villages in Siberia where -50 Celsius is a relatively common occurrence and the record on Earth stands at some -80 Celsius).
Being sent to Siberia used to be a punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
> Being sent to Siberia used to be a punishment.
Being sent to North American colonies of England was a punishment to, not to mention Australia,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I have my doubts... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a neat trick to send the excess CO2 from Venus to Mars. It would improve the inhabitability prospects for both worlds.
Probably not practical, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I have my doubts... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With 2 different planets, we'd be diversifying our environments, and different environments would lead to different ways of thinking, and perhaps new discoveries. What will we learn about the human body when we have millions of them living under 1/3 the gravity? What new tech will we develop to deal with new problems in that environment, like agricultural i
Re: (Score:2)
And even if a sizeable portion of the population still tries to mate in space for species sake, another sizeable portion will not and thus start a gen drift between Earth and Mars, driving them apart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one possibility:
The most expensive part of space travel is getting out of gravity wells. Both planets (starting there) could setup space elevators, and we could have many near-planet habitats on both sides. From these, people could travel between the planets more easily. Maybe that would lead to tourism, at least
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt the general feasibility of transforming Mars,
I, however, do.
If you calculate how much stuff (mainly gasses) needs to be dumped on mars before you can have anything like an atmosphere is staggering. We won't have that kind of industry in the foreseeable future and by the time we do (if we ever manage to get there as a species) things will be different anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to replenish the atmosphere regularly with more complex molecules though, as they tend to degrade over ti
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand the problem. Where will you get the (roughly) 1.000.000.000.000.000.000 kg of 'stuff' that you need for the atmosphere? Where will you get the energy to move it from the place you found it to the planet mars?
It's back-of-the-envelope masturbation of an old nasa engineer. It has nothing to do with it actually being viable for the next few centuries. And by then, i assure you, the world will be a completely different place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do that and you help kill the rain forest (Score:2)
Saharan winds literally fertilize the Amazonian forests, so you can imagine what happens when you cut off that growth enhancer.
https://science.nasa.gov/scien... [nasa.gov]
Not that a terraformed desert couldn't be capable of generating an equivalent resource conversion as the currently existing forests, but there would definitely be an effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than creating one large magnetic field why not hundreds of thousands of small ones, arranged so the individual magnetic fields align like shingles? As I understand it, the Earths magnetic shield is only 0.00006 tesla at it's strongest point, which is very weak compared to what we can generate (1,200 tesla), the challenge is the volume is immense. So, thousands of small, cheap, easily replaceable solar powered shields may be a much easier solution in terms of reliability, manufacturing and cost.
We can use magnets that don't need any external power. We'd want backups in the unlikely event of a strike with a meteor.
I am still completely leery of the concept of putting thousands of objects in orbit when a few will do.