Many of you have probably seen the series called The Universe on the History Channel.  In a recent episode, the program discussed the impending return to the Moon and plans and complications regarding a potential manned mission and eventual colonization of Mars.  The program made references to possible methods of terraforming Mars but noted that NASA is not currently researching terraforming because of the controversy surrounding the alteration/destruction of the natural environment on Mars.

I would be curious to know what other people in this forum think about this issue.

I’d say we’ve shat up this planet well enough; let’s leave Mars alone. Everywhere humans go, they leave garbage dumps behind them.

I read about terra-forming long before I ever heard of global warming.

The term is sometimes used more generally as a synonym for planetary engineering. The concept of terraforming developed from both science fiction and actual science. The term was probably invented by Jack Williamson in a science-fiction story ("Collision Orbit") published during 1942 in Astounding Science Fiction,[1] but the actual concept pre-dates this work. Olaf Stapledon’s Last and First Men (1930)[2] provides a fictional example in which the planet Venus is modified after a long and destructive war with the original inhabitants of the planet.

We would probably have to study the planet closely for probably 50 years before even coming up with a strategy for terra-forming it.  I remember a sci-fi story that involved propelling huge chunks of ice from the rings of Saturn to provide water for Mars. 

We don’t have good enough space technology and if we can’t figure out global warming we sure can’t competently terraform another planet.

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue23/trilogy.html

psik

Ain’t gonna happen. The one very important thing all these shows ignore is Mars lost its atmosphere because it does not have enough magnetism in its core to deflect the solar wind, which stripped Mars of its atmosphere. Terraforming Mars is a losing battle.

steveg144 - 10 April 2008 12:33 PM

I’d say we’ve shat up this planet well enough; let’s leave Mars alone. Everywhere humans go, they leave garbage dumps behind them.

Not really ... the planets fine, we’re really just screwing ourselves.

Personally I think we should colonises elsewhere because we may be the only intelligent life this universe has (I hope we aren’t but its one possibility) and if so we need to ensure our survival ... we’re far too vulnerable on one planet and colonising others in the same system is one step further.

Kyu

i think we should bomb mars with asteroids to increase its mass. this will hopefully re-liquify its core so it has a magnetic field. That way we can make a sustainable atmosphere on mars.  Admittedly, this plan may take a few weeks.

Ski.

SkiCarver - 11 April 2008 08:29 AM

i think we should bomb mars with asteroids to increase its mass. this will hopefully re-liquify its core so it has a magnetic field. That way we can make a sustainable atmosphere on mars.  Admittedly, this plan may take a few weeks.

Ski.

Melting the core of a planet by bombarding it with asteroids?

A few weeks!?!?!?

If it could be done what would happen to the SURFACE of the planet?  How long would it take the surface to cool?  Imagine all of the energy required to move the asteroids? 

It would make more sense to build generation ships to travel to other solar systems than to wait 400,000 years on a project like that.

psik

I think SkiCarver was being ironic ...

i think we should bomb mars with asteroids to increase its mass. this will hopefully re-liquify its core so it has a magnetic field. . . . Admittedly, this plan may take a few weeks.

It’s not often that these posts are intentionally funny, but that was a good one Ski. 

Your post does bring up an interesting question, and since we are on the fringes of science fiction and I am not a geologist or an astronomer, I’ll ask it: would it be possible to re-liquify the core and if so, how?  I know our moon plays a role in keeping Earth’s core molten, I wonder if we could simply drag a large asteroid and put it into orbit.  My plan is not as visionary as yours so the “moon contingency” would probably take a few months, even up to a year pending the development of an effective tractor beam. 

As far as a lack of magnetosphere, Mars still has an atmosphere, it’s a lot thinner than ours of course, but Venus has a pretty thick atmosphere and it does not have a magnetic field.  I’m not sure the dissipation of the atmosphere would really be a problem for humans.  Even without a magnetosphere, I found a paper that estimates that it will take solar winds a billion years to dissipate the O2 currently on Mars (lighter gases do dissipate much faster according to the article):

The observed rates of escape for the oxygen suggest that the solar wind scavenging process has the potential to remove all of Mars’ present inventory of atmospheric oxygen over the next 10[to the 8th] years.

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/mars_mag/

I’m not advocating terraforming, I was more interested in opinions on the morality of the practice.  However, the topic has numerous interesting facets.

Yeah lighter gases to dissipate faster.  This is one cause of our helium shortage.  If helium reaches the upper atmosphere, it is small enough to pick up enough ambient speed and leave us.  Which, I find kinda cool actually haha

Reference bombing mars with asteroids, I have heard that the ammount of ‘stuff’ out there is roughly equal to 1/2 or 2/3 of the moon. I am guessing that would be insufficient to do the job. We could perhaps use a few movie stars to raise the mass to a useful level. (they have very big heads / large egos - while being concurently very dense)

This strategy would obviously be a very long term thing. it would take hundreds of years to throw the stuff at mars, and they a very long time for the planet to cool enough to be habitable.

Ski.

2.7182818284 - 04 May 2008 07:08 PM

Yeah lighter gases to dissipate faster.  This is one cause of our helium shortage.  If helium reaches the upper atmosphere, it is small enough to pick up enough ambient speed and leave us.  Which, I find kinda cool actually haha

Hmmm, I’m gonna start storing He balloons in my basement. Then, when the earth runs out of it, I’ll have a great retirement savings.

traveler - 05 May 2008 06:59 AM

2.7182818284 - 04 May 2008 07:08 PM

Yeah lighter gases to dissipate faster.  This is one cause of our helium shortage.  If helium reaches the upper atmosphere, it is small enough to pick up enough ambient speed and leave us.  Which, I find kinda cool actually haha

Hmmm, I’m gonna start storing He balloons in my basement. Then, when the earth runs out of it, I’ll have a great retirement savings.

The universe is something like 25% He. i dont think that we will run out soon

silhouette - 10 June 2008 06:03 PM

traveler - 05 May 2008 06:59 AM

2.7182818284 - 04 May 2008 07:08 PM

Yeah lighter gases to dissipate faster.  This is one cause of our helium shortage.  If helium reaches the upper atmosphere, it is small enough to pick up enough ambient speed and leave us.  Which, I find kinda cool actually haha

Hmmm, I’m gonna start storing He balloons in my basement. Then, when the earth runs out of it, I’ll have a great retirement savings.

The universe is something like 25% He. i dont think that we will run out soon

Yeah, because we mine so much gas from space already.....you’re right with the universe being 25% surely the supply will never be pinched on earth.... 

We could just extract some He from natural gas I suppose....
I’m sorry, but natural gas wont be used up for another 200 or so years.

I dare you to say that we might run out of H.

steveg144 - 10 April 2008 12:33 PM

I’d say we’ve shat up this planet well enough; let’s leave Mars alone. Everywhere humans go, they leave garbage dumps behind them.

The astronauts are even dodging space garbage now! It is getting to be a real hazard out there!