Challenges of Terraforming Mars: Temperature, Air Pressure, and Radiation

[Nikitin]

Hi. So what'ya think? I've always been fascinated by this! The main problems are:

Temperature
Air Pressure
Air composition
Very weak magnetosphere

The temperature and air-pressure problems are linked and could be solved by a heating up the planet. Any good ideas?

But, the main obstacle is Mars' very nasty air composition. Once the problem of heating up the planet has been solved, what to do next? The atmosphere would be made up of practically only carbondioxide. Even if plants and microbes are successfully introduced at some point, and the concentrations of oxygen significantly increased, the air would still be poisonous.

Also, what effect would the radiation due to Mars' weak magnetosphere actually have on living organisms? http://www.universetoday.com/14979/mars-radiation/ according to this, the radiation isn't so bad. Typically at 0.002 rads per day, and much of it are + charged ions so not as lethal as 0.002 rads of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.

Would plants n organisms, assuming the air-pressure of Mars reaches acceptable levels and that there is ample supply of water, nitrogen and other stuff, be able to thrive on Mars?

 

[PAllen]

Hi. So what'ya think? I've always been fascinated by this! The main problems are:

Temperature
Air Pressure
Air composition
Very weak magnetosphere

The temperature and air-pressure problems are linked and could be solved by a heating up the planet. Any good ideas?

Achieve disarmament by launching all nuclear weapons on Earth to detonate on mars. Then wait a few thousand years for radiation to dissipate.

But, the main obstacle is Mars' very nasty air composition. Once the problem of heating up the planet has been solved, what to do next? The atmosphere would be made up of practically only carbondioxide. Even if plants and microbes are successfully introduced at some point, and the concentrations of oxygen significantly increased, the air would still be poisonous.

Only poisonous to higher animals. Let there be vegan world.

Also, what effect would the radiation due to Mars' weak magnetosphere actually have on living organisms? http://www.universetoday.com/14979/mars-radiation/ according to this, the radiation isn't so bad. Typically at 0.002 rads per day, and much of it are + charged ions so not as lethal as 0.002 rads of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation.

Would plants n organisms, assuming the air-pressure of Mars reaches acceptable levels and that there is ample supply of water, nitrogen and other stuff, be able to thrive on Mars?

I think so.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The obstacles are gargantuan. Firstly you have to thicken the atmosphere with the appropriate gasses, then you have to somehow account for the lack of magnetosphere, then you have to build some oceans, then you have to design an ecology.

I bolded the last one because as a biologist I often find that physicists/engineers often overlook just how hard the biology side is going to be. Often on threads of this genre people assume that once we've smashed the comets for the heat and water that we can just drop algae canisters and Bob's your uncle grow an ecosystem.

The reality is that all habitats on Earth (and by extension the entire biosphere) have evolved to have a finely balanced yet dynamic system which involves the interaction of thousands to millions of different organisms. We haven't even begun to map the various interactions that go on. In reality we won't be able to terraform anything until we have a map of the biosphere that would rival a metabolic flow diagram for complexity. Once this is done then we can start on the next gargantuan task of learning what patterns are necessary and how we are going to genetically engineer organisms to churn Mars soil into something suitable for growing an Earth biosphere on.

IMHO: by the time we get to the level of science, technology, industry and social will required to terraform we will be far more proficient in just terraforming the inhospitable areas of Earth, constructing new islands/continents, building floating cities and constructing cities underwater. There's plenty more space on Earth without the need of trying to build another.

 

[Nikitin]

But surely, the heating of the planet would take a very long time. Why not start early? And in the mean time, we could populate the rest of earth, bringing the other species to their knees. lol

And PAllen brings up a good point, it isn't feasible to completely terraform Mars, is it? But, if Mars gets filled with plants, its atmosphere thickens and the planet heats up then humans could walk around and live comfortably in protective suits

Btw, concerning the Ocean thingy, I thought that the presence of massive amounts of water-ice was already as good as confirmed by the probes?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

But surely, the heating of the planet would take a very long time. Why not start early? And in the mean time, we could populate the rest of earth, bringing the other species to their knees. lol

And PAllen brings up a good point, it isn't feasible to completely terraform Mars, is it? But, if Mars gets filled with plants, its atmosphere thickens and the planet heats up then humans could walk around and live comfortably in protective suits

Btw, concerning the Ocean thingy, I thought that the presence of massive amounts of water-ice was already as good as confirmed by the probes?

As per my post above you can't expect to just dump plants on Mars and have them to cover the planet. Plants require the relevant;

• soil chemistry
• soil temperature
• soil bacteria
• soil moisture
• air humidity
• precipitation
• air temperature
• daily temperature variance
• seasonal temperature variance
• light intensity
• relevant light colour
• daily light intensity variance
• seasonal light intensity variance
• atmospheric pressure
• as well as a host of other organisms to act symbiotically to form a stable ecology.

We need to have an understanding of ecology, genetics, proteomics, metabolics etc far greater than our understanding of all other life sciences today before we can even begin to assess possible routes to designing an ecosystem that could thrive on Mars.

 

[PAllen]

As per my post above you can't expect to just dump plants on Mars and have them to cover the planet. Plants require the relevant;

• soil chemistry
• soil temperature
• soil bacteria
• soil moisture
• air humidity
• precipitation
• air temperature
• daily temperature variance
• seasonal temperature variance
• light intensity
• relevant light colour
• daily light intensity variance
• seasonal light intensity variance
• atmospheric pressure
• as well as a host of other organisms to act symbiotically to form a stable ecology.

We need to have an understanding of ecology, genetics, proteomics, metabolics etc far greater than our understanding of all other life sciences today before we can even begin to assess possible routes to designing an ecosystem that could thrive on Mars.

We don't necessarily have to design it. I'm thinking getting an ecology going in 50,000 years is a big improvement over a billion. So after making Mars a bit more hospitable, replicate comparable conditions in a dome on earth, introduce a wide range of extremophiles and raw materials, let evolution work over some thousands of years, then transport the ecosystem to mars. A bit of a gamble, but not preposterous.

 

[Nikitin]

Well, I thought you knew about the amounts of "dry-ice" on Mars, i.e. frozen carbondioxide. If the temperature would increase a few degrees then this ice would start melting and, since carbondioxide is a drivehouse gas, it would accelerate the heating process.

So the atmospheric pressure isn't a problem. As for the humidity of the air and soil - there is speculation about the presence of massive amounts of water-ice on Mars. As for the soil chemistry - yeah that one is interesting but why would it necessarily be so poisonous to life or barren? I'm sure that with some nice genetic engineering the colonization of Mars could start.

While I'm sure you did not mean to suggest that it would be impossible to establish life on Mars, I think you are quite pessimistic given the results of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_( spacecraft )#Results_of_the_mission mission.

And sorry if I sound ignorant, as I haven't even started on uni yet. Got 1 more year left of high school !

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, I thought you knew about the amounts of "dry-ice" on Mars, i.e. frozen carbondioxide. If the temperature would increase a few degrees then this ice would start melting and, since carbondioxide is a drivehouse gas, it would accelerate the heating process.

So the atmospheric pressure isn't a problem. As for the humidity of the air and soil - there is speculation about the presence of massive amounts of water-ice on Mars. As for the soil chemistry - yeah that one is interesting but why would it necessarily be so poisonous to life or barren? I'm sure that with some nice genetic engineering the colonization of Mars could start.

While I'm sure you did not mean to suggest that it would be impossible to establish life on Mars, I think you are quite pessimistic given the results of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_( spacecraft )#Results_of_the_mission mission.

And sorry if I sound ignorant, as I haven't even started on uni yet. Got 1 more year left of high school !

Ignorance is not a problem :) we are all ignorant of something before we learn (maintaining ignorance is a problem but you aren't doing that).

Clearly I'm not getting my point across. We have no idea what the majority of plants need to survive, we have no idea how to build a stable ecosystem (it is not enough to just dump some vegetation somewhere and expect it to grow). Looking at the link that you yourself provided there are no organisms (with the possible exception of extremophile bacteria) that can survive/thrive in 0.01 atmosphere, temperatures of -20 to -90 etc.

Genetic engineering involves the cutting and pasting of genes into or out of an organism, it relies on us finding a protein that we wish an organism to express and finding a suitable place in the genome to insert it where it doesn't interfere with the metabolism in a negative way (this is hideously difficult for multicellular organisms and tends to rely on chance more than anything). We are nowhere near the level of complexity needed to design organisms to live on Mars soil, in Mars atmosphere, in Mars light. I'm afraid you can't just say "some nice genetic engineering" will help without providing references or displaying detailed knowledge on the subject. What you are asking isn't genetic engineering as it is in real life, what you are asking for is for us to pretty much create from scratch millions of species to work as an ecology.

We need to pull off all of the things I've mentioned above which are orders of magnitude more complex than any physical terraforming problem. And once we have got the necessary knowledge to restructure ecologies as we see fit we could just do it on Earth or in space habitats, no need to go to all the trouble of terraforming at all!

 

[Cosmo Novice]

While I'm sure you did not mean to suggest that it would be impossible to establish life on Mars, I think you are quite pessimistic given the results of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_( spacecraft )#Results_of_the_mission mission.

Hello Nikitin,

I think it is important here to look at definitions - terraforming as per the orginal post and establishing life can be interpreted as different things.

If we are talking about complete terraforming (Mars having a human sustaining environment) I think Ryan has briefly covered some of the biological issues - ecologies are incredibly complex. Ecologies are so complex that biologists spent many years studying them and we can still totally unbalance ecosystems with minor changes (Cane toad introduction into Australia for example)

To take this further: to completely terraform an ENTIRE planet and not just some habitable dome or structure would require an immense amount of resource (econonmical and social) over a VERY long period of time, would require technologies and understanding of the physical world well above our current models, would also require a very important reason.

In short while I agree that terraforming is possible, possibility doesn't denote plausibility and there is a good chance that we may never fully terraform Mars.

Ryan may have a field day with what I am about to write! - It may even be easier to go Intersteller and find a planet with earthlike properties than to completely terraform a barren planet. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ryan may have a field day with what I am about to write! - It may even be easier to go Intersteller and find a planet with earthlike properties than to completely terraform a barren planet. :)

Lol no I think you hit the nail on the head Cosmo! For us to be able to even figure out the fundamental concepts of how to terraform we need to have a map of the planet's biosphere to rival that of the human genome project. Then we have to figure out how to implement it without inducing catastrophic eco-disaster by not balancing the variables as you said.

I don't think terraforming is impossible but it's nothing we can do anytime soon. If we really want Mars to be covered in life we could smash comets into it for oceans, heat and atmosphere then dump trillions of canisters of complex molecules into these oceans. Wait several billion years and we may have the first martian organism!

Though this probably isn't what terrafomers have in mind...

 

[PAllen]

Lol no I think you hit the nail on the head Cosmo! For us to be able to even figure out the fundamental concepts of how to terraform we need to have a map of the planet's biosphere to rival that of the human genome project. Then we have to figure out how to implement it without inducing catastrophic eco-disaster by not balancing the variables as you said.

I don't think terraforming is impossible but it's nothing we can do anytime soon. If we really want Mars to be covered in life we could smash comets into it for oceans, heat and atmosphere then dump trillions of canisters of complex molecules into these oceans. Wait sevveral billion years and we may have the first martian organism!

Though this probably isn't what terrafomers have in mind...

Well, my humorous recipe is just to speed this up a little. Nuke it to warm it and release some CO2 and water. Wait a bit for just the worst radiation to die down (the rest might accelerate evolution). Then ship large amounts of organic matter and extremophiles from earth, and see what happens. Aim to establish some some sustaining life, not really terraform. I guess I am more optimistic than you that something would take given the range of conditions where extremophiles live.

 

[Nikitin]

Sorry if there is something I'm getting wrong, I haven't studied biology. Not my thing.

anyway

Ryan, I think you have misunderstood me. There is little point to start throwing plants on Mars at this moment, I was speaking of the future. After the atmosphere thickens and the temperature rises. I think the main problem is how to start the heating process...

On Mars all the fundamental elements (+water) needed to sustain life, Carbon, nitrogen oxygen, phosphate hydrogen and so on are thought to exist in good supply on Mars. This would mean that strategicly-selected bacteria (those that produce oxygen, perhaps?), perhaps even all kinds of plankton to the oceans, and other simple organisms could easily be introduced, after the planet has been heated. Unless I am getting something wrong? If so don't hesitate to massacre me.

Once that is in place, I am sure there would be some, possibly engineered in some way, plants that could be introduced. There's always something !

PS. A few great links:
http://www.marssociety.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm (tho the american units are quite annoying for us euros)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

On Mars all the fundamental elements (+water) needed to sustain life, Carbon, nitrogen oxygen, phosphate hydrogen and so on are thought to exist in good supply on Mars. This would mean that strategicly-selected bacteria (those that produce oxygen, perhaps?), perhaps even all kinds of plankton to the oceans, and other simple organisms could easily be introduced, after the planet has been heated. Unless I am getting something wrong? If so don't hesitate to massacre me.

It's not a case of massacring you, I've already outlined all the problems. None of your links has a clear way of building an ecology on Mars, it's not enough just to plonk bacteria on a planet and wait for it to be terraformed. The fact that the elements life need are present doesn't mean they are so in easily accessible compositions or concentrations.

Assuming you filled the planet with oceans, a thicker atmosphere and a temperature that is acceptable for life you then have to deal with turning the surface into fertile soil. For that you need an ecology not just a few carefully selected bacteria. In addition you will have to deal with the potential toxicity of Mars, I highly doubt that it would be simple to get plants to grow on a surface with so much iron lying around.

What you are asking for is a colossal undertaking requiring us to have science, technology and industry as far advanced from us now as we are from ancient societies. I'm not saying it's impossible but you don't seem to be grasping the need for an ecology rather than just select species introduced one at a time.

I'm not knocking you but it's not very helpful when we just speculate "we could find an oxygen making bacteria then use soil making plankton before finally dropping genetically engineered tree seeds!". We might as well be saying "if we could use a soil making machine we could just use tractors to drag it over the planet and plant seeds!" For a productive conversation on terraforming to occur we would have to actually use some real life science, as our knowledge of ecosystems is far less than it needs to be there is very little constructive speculation that can occur at this stage.

 

[Nikitin]

The soil would, obviously, be made fertile after primitive life have been introduced! I really don't see the exact issue here. Sure, the soil isn't perfect and there are many factors playing in, but that doesn't make anything impossible, or even improbable. What exactly is making it impossible? The fundamental elements are there, with nitrates in supply, acidity not a problem and the soil containing various salts (minerals).

I'm not saying it is 100% guaranteed that Mars is fully capable of supporting life, I am saying it is far from impossible. We shall see.

By today's age, accelerating (ammonia) asteroids (if they are present!) or even building up infrastructure on Mars for the production of powerful drive-house gases are by no means pipe-dreams. The theory is here, but the effort, and thus technology, is lacking.

Besides, heating up the planet & introducing life would only be the short first stage. The long, long, long stage of terraforming will be adjusting the make-up of the atmosphere i.e. making it breathable for humans. The last stage is the hardest one, and the one where future humans will have time on their side.

You are being overly pessimistic, I think. Starting the first stage of terraforming today is by no means comparable to the Romans launching into space. I think a better comparison would be the people of the 1930's launching themselves into space.

 

[Sothh]

Just to add my thoughts, one of the problems I have not yet seen addressed is the magnetic field.

I think I have a "simple" way of fixing that. Bring a big asteroid into orbit, which should make mars's core move like waves move because of our moon. This should create a magnetic field.

It is theorized that this actually happened in the past.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

The soil would, obviously, be made fertile after primitive life have been introduced! I really don't see the exact issue here. Sure, the soil isn't perfect and there are many factors playing in, but that doesn't make anything impossible, or even improbable. What exactly is making it impossible? The fundamental elements are there, with nitrates in supply, acidity not a problem and the soil containing various salts (minerals).

I'm not saying it is 100% guaranteed that Mars is fully capable of supporting life, I am saying it is far from impossible. We shall see.

The sort of timescales needed to terraform a planet are on a cosmological order - the sort of long term civilisation stability, with continued technological, social and resource intensive investment this would require is huge. If you think about how long the current social structures have lasted and compare this to an accelerated terraforming project, were talking about governments a few hundred years old (not even that) taking on projects that I have heard on this topic describes as 50,000 year projects! (Which I think is a VERY optimistic timeframe)

By today's age, accelerating (ammonia) asteroids (if they are present!) or even building up infrastructure on Mars for the production of powerful drive-house gases are by no means pipe-dreams. The theory is here, but the effort, and thus technology, is lacking.

Ok well I am not sure how much gas you can produce or how much heavy industry could be developed easily on Mars (without prefabricated factories being dropped in from offworld - the amount of fuel needed to establish working factories would be immense) - ok granted once some infrastructure was in place more and more could be produced on world.

Also the "theory is here" is not necessarily true - i will grant you that a very basic idea is there, but I can easily say that for FTL the theory is there - we just need to travel faster than light, but the reality is totally different. I do not think we have the current theory of an acceptable level to recreate an ecology on an exact replica of Earth - let alone a distant cousin. The effort is not lacking it is just that we really have no idea on how to start terraforming a barren planet - I mean to be fair we haven't even put a man on Mars yet :)

Besides, heating up the planet & introducing life would only be the short first stage. The long, long, long stage of terraforming will be adjusting the make-up of the atmosphere i.e. making it breathable for humans. The last stage is the hardest one, and the one where future humans will have time on their side.

You are being overly pessimistic, I think. Starting the first stage of terraforming today is by no means comparable to the Romans launching into space. I think a better comparison would be the people of the 1930's launching themselves into space.

As I mentioned earlier I do not think human civilisation has the longevity required to terraform a planet in such a way - hopefully I am wrong :)

I think Ryan is being totally realistic, the difficulties facing us in terraforming a planet are IMMENSE. Ryan has only really touched on the ecological ones. There are however many other hurdles in the way, not least of which the resources it would take to completely terraform a planet.

I think one of the key distinctions I need to stress are the difference between establishing widely dispersed bacterial life and life capable of sustaining humans independently. The former I think we can probably start in the next few hundred years, the latter I feel we would need to wait on evolution following our "seeding" and unfortunately its not that fast! :)

 

[Nikitin]

Well, why would cultivating plants be so difficult? The early colonizers would survive on plants, not meat. I also fail to see why recreating an ecology exactly as Earth's is so crucial.. The first thing that would be needed would simply be suitable plants and bacteria, i.e. plants capable of releasing as much oxygen as possible. Building up an ecology suitable for the terraforming process is really the objective.

Also I'd imagine ammonia-producing bacteria could come in handy, as ammonia is not only a powerful greenhouse gas, it is also capable of blocking-out harmful UV radiation.

I strongly disagree that the theory is here for FTL drives. There is absolutely no serious theories about how it would be possible to break or avoid the laws of relativity, and even if there are, these theories depend on some marvel technology that are pipe-dreams, at least currently.

Why would accelerating ammonia-asteroids be such a pipe-dream? "just" place a few very powerful heat-generators on the correct place at the correct time. This is assuming there are suitable asteroids of this type, though. Or transporting greenhouse gas producing infrastructure to Mars? Time consuming and expensive, but possible.

These are realistic options. We already know how to transport probes to Mars, and we already are able to land probes on asteroids.

It would though require a gigantic investment of resources, akin to the apollo mission.

As for the time-scale: It would take roughly ~ 25 years for the ammonia asteroids to reach Mars. After the collisions massive amounts of ammonia gas will be released, which would easily heat the atmosphere due to it being a strong greenhouse gas. A few decades more and Mars will be turned into a warm planet with oceans and a decent atmosphere. Producing powerful drivehouse gases on Mars would make this process go even faster. Then the issue is increasing the concentration of oxygen in Mars' athmosphere to a suitable level for special plants. That would take more decades using only plants, but not only plants can be used. So basically, turning Mars green may take only a mere century.

Then comes the long-term objective of engineering the atmosphere composition. This could take as much as a few thousands years, 1000 years to be optimistic, but nowhere close to 50,000 years. And remember, the 1000 year time-scale is with today's thinking..

I use this http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm very interesting paper as my backing.

Just to add my thoughts, one of the problems I have not yet seen addressed is the magnetic field.

I think I have a "simple" way of fixing that. Bring a big asteroid into orbit, which should make mars's core move like waves move because of our moon. This should create a magnetic field.

It is theorized that this actually happened in the past.

Hmm could you perhaps explain closer? Mars' core isn't molten, this is the main problem.

I don't think giving Mars a proper magnetic field is realistically possible, at least not in this age. maybe in a thousand years...

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Well, why would cultivating plants be so difficult? The early colonizers would survive on plants, not meat. I also fail to see why recreating an ecology exactly as Earth's is so crucial.. The first thing that would be needed would simply be suitable plants and bacteria, i.e. plants capable of releasing as much oxygen as possible. Building up an ecology suitable for the terraforming process is really the objective.

Cultivating plants that have spent millions of years evolving on Earth to live in a completely alien environment would be difficult, I believe the explanation of difficulty is in itself. Recreating an earthlike ecology would be crucial if you wanted humans to survive in the environment, again we have evolved into our current world.

You are conveniently grouping together bacteria and plant life and while I agree establishing microbial life is well within our capability plantlife is multi-cellular and far more complex - its requirements follow suit accordingly.

I strongly disagree that the theory is here for FTL drives. There is absolutely no serious theories about how it would be possible to break or avoid the laws of relativity, and even if there are, these theories depend on some marvel technology that are pipe-dreams, at least currently.

Yes they are pipe dreams, that was my point. The underlying theory is there - the Alcubierre drive is a theoretical propulsion system, but I believe as a scientific notion currently this has as much worth as terraforming mars.

Why would accelerating ammonia-asteroids be such a pipe-dream? "just" place a few very powerful heat-generators on the correct place at the correct time. This is assuming there are suitable asteroids of this type, though. Or transporting greenhouse gas producing infrastructure to Mars? Time consuming and expensive, but possible.

I would say time consuming and expensive is an understatement... can you perhaps calculate how much of the worlds GDP would be required to move enough infrastructure to oxygenate a planet?

As for the time-scale: It would take roughly ~ 25 years for the ammonia asteroids to reach Mars. After the collisions massive amounts of ammonia gas will be released, which would easily heat the atmosphere due to it being a strong greenhouse gas. A few decades more and Mars will be turned into a warm planet with oceans and a decent atmosphere. Producing powerful drivehouse gases on Mars would make this process go even faster. Then the issue is increasing the concentration of oxygen in Mars' athmosphere to a suitable level for special plants. That would take more decades using only plants, but not only plants can be used. So basically, turning Mars green may take only a mere century.

I am quite interested in these timescales:

25 years for the ammonia asteroids to reach Mars - is this once we have redirected the asteroid to reach Mars, or 25 years to come up with mission design, build the capable craft, test to standards etc etc. fly to the asteroid and then move it?

Also in the article you linked:

"Now we don't know for sure if there are numerous asteroid size objects in the outer solar system, but there is no reason to believe that there aren't. As of this writing, only one is known, but that one, Chiron, orbiting between Saturn and Uranus is rather large (180 km diameter,), and it may be expected that a lot of small objects can be found for every big one. In all probability, the outer solar system contains thousands of asteroids that we have yet to discover because they shine so dimly compared to those in the Main Belt"

So does this 25 years also account for finding these asteroids?

On a broader note the article linked is a technological requirement theory which I took the liberty of reading in full - I am pretty sure these have been produced on a number of projects. The Orion project, Dyson Spheres etc. It doesn't make the challenges any less valid, and it also fails to take into account anything other than a mathematical model.

While I do not say that terrafroming Mars is impossible I think with current technology and understanding its is WELL beyond what we are capable of and given that a project of this sort is longitudinal - let's say for arguments sake I agreed to a 1000 years, then I still think it very unlikely any government could invest and remain stable for so long.

To me there are as many non technological limiting factors as technological ones.

 

[Nikitin]

1. What do you mean by an "earthlike" ecology, exactly? Why would you want one? And what exactly is in the way for letting plant-life thrive on Mars, assuming the results of the pheonix mission are typical for Mars? Anyway, I am sure that biologists could easily figure out a proper biological model. As said, Mars does have all the needed nutrients.

2. Well, the current technology needed to start the terraforming of Mars are by no means pipe-dreams. Oxygenating a planet.. This is the last step of the terraforming, and true the most expensive one. But why worry about this now? Making Mars green is the first priority.

3. 25 years for the asteroid to hit Mars. That's what I meant. From the point that the Asteroids start hitting Mars, most of the job is done.

While it would take much time to produce the technology needed and find the proper asteroids, this wouldn't take thousands of years, so to speak.

Anyway, there are more alternatives than just asteroids to heating up the planet. None of them impossible or "pipe-dreams". Quite expensive and extremely time consuming, yes. But quite possible and realistic, given the funding and effort.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

1. What do you mean by an "earthlike" ecology, exactly? Why would you want one? And what exactly is in the way for letting plant-life thrive on Mars, assuming the results of the pheonix mission are typical for Mars? Anyway, I am sure that biologists could easily figure out a proper biological model. As said, Mars does have all the needed nutrients.

If we are terraforming a planet then why would you not want an earth-like planet? Unless there is plan to allow for the natural evolution of a martian ecosystem then I assume we would be wanting to reproduce an Earth like ecology so Earth plants/animals could eventually be native to Mars. Also if the plan is for martian environment to support life then "earthlike" would probably be the best.

Ryan is a biologist so I woukd be interested to hear how biologists could "figure out a proper biologigical model" - this sounds extremely naive to me. We barely understand Earth ecosystems in their complexity - to then apply this to a foreign environment... Like is said I wuld be very interested to hear a biologist opinion on this.

2. Well, the current technology needed to start the terraforming of Mars are by no means pipe-dreams. Oxygenating a planet.. This is the last step of the terraforming, and true the most expensive one. But why worry about this now? Making Mars green is the first priority.

With current economic depression - and future forecasts, I would argue most governments have to justify "why worry about that now?" As what would be the point in undertaking a massively longitdinal project without definitive success.

3. 25 years for the asteroid to hit Mars. That's what I meant. From the point that the Asteroids start hitting Mars, most of the job is done.

While it would take much time to produce the technology needed and find the proper asteroids, this wouldn't take thousands of years, so to speak.

These two statements seem to contradict each other - the technology would need to be designed, produced and tested, then a comet located and redirected - I highly doubt 25 years is realistic. Also with regards to Ammonia Asteroids:

"While attractive in a number of respects, the feasibility of the asteroidal impact concept is uncertain because of the lack of data on outer solar system ammonia objects. Moreover, if Td is greater than 20 K, a sustained greenhousing effort will be required. as the characteristic lifetime of an ammonia molecule on Mars is likely to be less than a century, this means that even after the temperature is raised, ammonia objects would need to continue to be imported to Mars, albeit at a reduced rate. As each object will hit Mars with an energy yield equal to about 70,000 1 megaton hydrogen bombs, the continuation of such a program may be incompatible with the objective of making Mars suitable for human settlement."

Anyway, there are more alternatives than just asteroids to heating up the planet. None of them impossible or "pipe-dreams". Quite expensive and extremely time consuming, yes. But quite possible and realistic, given the funding and effort.

Nikitin I do agree with you and I think in the next thousand years then these sorts of projects become more and more technically feasible. Note I bolded technical as these are not the only limiting factors. Increasingly cost may be the main concern for a long term project of this nature - it may be that commercial reasons push terraformation projects.

 

[Nikitin]

No, producing an earth-like ecological system is utterly impossible at the beginning. Once the Martian atmosphere is approaching earth-like similarity, then maybe.

I do not see the contradiction. It would take a long time to develop and build the required technology, yes. Nobody ever denied that.

The Asteroidal impact concept is very feasible, given that the relevant asteroids are present in practical numbers. Once the heating has been jump-started, the positive feedback effect, i.e. the greenhouse effect in this circumstance, should be all that is needed. This is assuming that the carbondioxide in the Martian soil isn't too hard to get out. If it is, and it most likely isn't, then as the quotation said more effort would be required.

But again, producing powerful greenhouse gases on Mars is also an alternative.

Nonono, this is technically feasible to do TODAY, let alone in a thousands years! The entire project could start today and we would see results in our lifetime. Maybe we would live to see the day where they start planting plants on Mars, even.

The project IS long-term, however. Creating a breathable atmosphere is by far the hardest and most challenging part.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Nonono, this is technically feasible to do TODAY, let alone in a thousands years! The entire project could start today and we would see results in our lifetime. Maybe we would live to see the day where they start planting plants on Mars, even.

You honestly believe the technology exists right now to jump start asteroids onto a collision course with Mars?

I think the theory may be there, nothing more. As for plants in a self sustaining atmosphere within our lifetime I really do think this is a pipe dream and we will just have to agree to disagree.

Would be interested to hear some biologists viewpoint on this? Wouldnt there be a need to recreate microbial life necessary for plant survival, genetic adaption for varying UV radiation, problematic ground composition on topsoil just to mention a few problems.

Anybody qualified/semi qualified out there that can clarify some of this?

 

[Nikitin]

Just to clarify: I misunderstood what you meant by "technically". I didn't think you meant it literally, but theoretically.

Anyway, I think we both agree, though, that it is possible to develop the relevant technologies and get the entire process into motion, in this age.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Just to clarify: I misunderstood what you meant by "technically". I didn't think you meant it literally, but theoretically.

Anyway, I think we both agree, though, that it is possible to develop the relevant technologies and get the entire process into motion, in this age.

I think we agree that its possible to BEGIN developing the relevant technologies and BEGIN to get the process into motion. That said I don't think there is sufficient resource or motivation, but i do concede it is totally possible and plausible given enough time, technical knowhow and resource.

I would in fact love to see some plans underway in my lifetime, I don't think that will be the case though. :)

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The soil would, obviously, be made fertile after primitive life have been introduced! I really don't see the exact issue here. Sure, the soil isn't perfect and there are many factors playing in, but that doesn't make anything impossible, or even improbable. What exactly is making it impossible? The fundamental elements are there, with nitrates in supply, acidity not a problem and the soil containing various salts (minerals).

I'm beginning to feel like you are ignoring me here. Have you not read everything that has been said about the complexity of ecologies? You cannot simply state "primitive life" and wish-away the necessities of turning a barren wasteland of potentially toxic soil (thanks to different chemical composition and concentrations).

It's definitely not in the pipeline for us to grow an environment! What you need to understand Nikitin is that ecologies are not modular. You cannot just pick out little bits of them like components from a machine.

You speak of using "rapidly oxygenating plants" and "primitive bacteria" but these things need very precise environmental conditions (see post 5) and other organisms to survive. We may want to use Plant A but to get that to grow we will need Plant B and Bacteria Z, Plant B may need Plant C and Animal A, Bacteria Z may need Animal B and C...

I think you would benefit from going away and perhaps buying some books on ecology or biology. Systems like this are extremely complex and we are not nearly at the point of building one. If we were then we could be on our way to colonising the Atacama, the Gobi, Sahara etc as well as easily maintaining any habitat destruction we are experiencing on Earth.

 

[D H]

Just to clarify: I misunderstood what you meant by "technically". I didn't think you meant it literally, but theoretically.

Anyway, I think we both agree, though, that it is possible to develop the relevant technologies and get the entire process into motion, in this age.

No, it is not within grasp. Ryan has said quite a bit about the biological aspects alone. You have hand-waved all of those issues away. The same goes for the engineering aspects of the problem. You have hand-waved all of those issues away, too. None of the needed technology is within grasp. Not even close.

There are many other issues that you have ignored. Just three:

1. Wrong priority.
This isn't a matter of putting the cart before the horse. This is putting a non-existent cart before a non-existent horse. There is no need to even start on terraforming Mars without cheap, easy, and safe access to space. Right now we don't have any of those. Let's solve these key problems first.

2. Wrong direction.
Suppose we do solve the problem of making access to space cheap, easy, and safe. Why would you want to go back down into a gravity well? The next step after solving these key initial challenges is to colonize space, not other worlds.

3. Xenocide.
We don't yet know if Mars has life. Many people are beginning to rethink earlier designations of Mars as a dead planet. If we terraform Mars and it turns out that Mars does have life, we have just become xenocides. That existing Mars life almost certainly would not tolerate an Earth-style environment. Granted, we already are xenocides, but this would be xenocide of a different kind. We are presently doing a bit of pruning of the tree of life. Terraforming Mars might well cut off a completely different tree of life, roots and all.

 

[Nik_2213]

First, you need to have a look at the boldest attempt at a sealed environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
Then consider the work NASA and the Russians are doing on 'bio-recycling' for just their 'Mars Mission' simulations. Going from racks and tanks in a hermetically sealed system to a 'greenhouse' with Mars' native 'sand' is going to be very, very hard...

IMHO, the 'least effort' route to giving Mars a viable atmosphere takes the diversion of several big, juicy comets. Yes, that is a massive undertaking, requiring decades and, probably, fusion power. Yes, their material may be useful as reaction fuel. Yes, they would need shredding to below ~ 10 cubic metres per lump just before arrival to ensure their material stays in Mars' atmosphere post-impact.

Meanwhile, the pioneers will be tunnelling into Valles Marineris' flanks, following saline seeps. Also, the atmosphere will be slightly denser down there...

FWIW, initial settlements *must* be buried or underground because even small meteorites penetrate the thin Martian atmosphere, and the lack of a significant ionosphere means there's a solar radiation hazard. Losing your settlement to a CME would be very, very bad...

 

[Hells]

Can increasing the thickness of the atmosphere compensate for lack of a magnetic field?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Can increasing the thickness of the atmosphere compensate for lack of a magnetic field?

I'm not 100% sure of the physics of how the magnetosphere stops radiation (by type and quantity) however increasing the atmosphere's thickness probably would stop some radiation but the downside is that increasing atmosphere increases pressure. This would be a big problem.

 

[Pilot7]

No, it is not within grasp. Ryan has said quite a bit about the biological aspects alone. You have hand-waved all of those issues away. The same goes for the engineering aspects of the problem. ...

There are many other issues that you have ignored. Just three:

1. Wrong priority.
...a non-existent cart before a non-existent horse. There is no need to even start on terraforming Mars without cheap, easy, and safe access to space. Right now we don't have any of those. Let's solve these key problems first.

2. Wrong direction.
...Why would you want to go back down into a gravity well? ...

3. Xenocide.
We don't yet know if Mars has life. ... Mars as a dead planet. ...

Hi all--

I wonder if the context of this discussion has been a bit ambiguous. Reading through the posts, it seems folks are sometimes talking passed each other. For example Ryan_m_b is saying very sound things about ecology, whereas PAllen takes a much broader perspective. The context is left pretty open by Nikitin in opening thread, and so it seems to me no one is really out of order here, but everyone is speaking to different levels of speculation/ consideration/ design about Terraforming.

Seems to me, there are at least four levels to look at this project/problem:

1. Fantasy -- meaning involving stuff like FTL, stuff that is maybe theoretically possible, but not yet within the range of the engineer's imagination.

2. Science Fiction -- FAPP fantasy, but within the imagination, so possibly possible within the context of technology of the next century.

3. Pushing the Envelope -- today's technology, plus a bit. Problems we have not solved, but various kinds of engineers would not just shake their heads in dismay at them.

4. Today's technology. And of course here, we can totally forget anything like terraforming on any level (space travel, ecology creation, etc.)

Most of the mix up this thread seems to be people with type 2 context talking with people in type 3 contexts. Neither is right or wrong, this is just a communication issue (seems to me).

Part of what makes this whole issue so interesting is that since no one is claiming Star Trek technology (fantasy) that would see terraforming undertaken on the order of a generation or two, the time spans inevitably involved are sufficient for sure to sort of mix type 2 and 3 thinking. Given that a century ago, most people were still using horses and carts to get around, it goes without saying that an awful lot can, and probably will, barring our own destruction, happen in the next century. In fact, so much is likely to change, it is a fair argument made that we cannot even begin accurately to guess how we might in the future undertake such a project as terraforming Mars... I don't take this as a license for pessimism, not least because this sort of discussion is itself part of what drives the sort of progress noted... even though we can be reasonably sure that whatever we might eventually actually do will likely look nothing like what we imagine here now.

So, whereas we might rather more likely see the application of nanotechnology mixed with various genetically modified super bacteria in the future (currently a type 1 to 2 option, but later perhaps a type 3 and maybe even 4 inside the century), that is no reason not to speculate on the general parameters we would still need to consider: eg. atmosphere, pressure, magnetic fields, temperature, oceans, etc.. Nor does it preclude us from dreaming up what we would like to have: eg a proper Mars colony replete with farms, forests, and secsessionists! Or perhaps our goal should be otherwise, as D_H notes.

And it is heartwarming also to see reference made to some of the ethical dimensions, that perhaps we should not be so quick to go and take over another pond that already contains its own frogs (per D_H on xenocide). But I also have to laugh here, because it was not that long ago (as in maybe two or so decades) that the mere suggestion of life on another planet would get you tossed out of any "serious" scientific discussion... My how things change!

On point 2, wrong direction, D_H poses a good question: Why would we even want to colonize another planet? Actually, I think there are probably some good reasons to want to go down a gravity well, but in answering this why question, we also are then able to get a better grip on what it is actually that we want. It is not obvious that mimicing Earth's environment is ideal... Perhaps we do want some gravity, but perhaps alternative atmosphere's would be more condusive to any of many activities we would want to explore there. So it is a good question: what is our purpose? Ensuring the survival of our species and ecology of species? A holiday resort and theme park? An industrial base with and from which to develop serious space travel? And so on...

On D_H's point 1, regarding the right ordering of horses and carts, seems to me that we are not too soon to speculate about where it is we want to go and how we might get there. True, we lack the technology at present viably to colonize, never mind terraform, Mars. But part of developing that technology is also having in sights some of our possible goals. Which of course begs point 2 above...

So let me leave off with this question: Say we even did have Star Trek type 1 fantasy technology, what would we even want ideally to see on Mars actually? And here we might also consider the two ethical cases where that pond already does and does not have Martian frogs living in it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Hi all--

I wonder if the context of this discussion has been a bit ambiguous. Reading through the posts, it seems folks are sometimes talking passed each other. For example Ryan_m_b is saying very sound things about ecology, whereas PAllen takes a much broader perspective. The context is left pretty open by Nikitin in opening thread, and so it seems to me no one is really out of order here, but everyone is speaking to different levels of speculation/ consideration/ design about Terraforming.

Seems to me, there are at least four levels to look at this project/problem:

You may be interested to read about Technology readiness levels. This is a 1-9 rating system that ranges from basic science to ready-for-market. I would argue that the technology needed for terraforming range from >1 - 3 with the latter only applying to limited areas of research in space and genetic science.

I agree with you that there is scope to speculate on the issue however I feel that such speculation must be kept mainly in your third category with second category forays supported by sound science. I find there's too much handwavium and unobtainium cited in terraforming discussions with the technological hurdles relegated to mere details.

The motivations and ethics of terraforming are very interesting. Personally I think planetary scale terraforming is unethical if there is a chance that there is life (however primitive) on the surface. Purely because if you can terraform a planet you can easily core out an asteroid, give it a spin and terraform the inside to make an O'Neill cylinder. This way you can avoid the hassle of a gravity well, get a far higher habitable surface area per mass and generate a higher diversity of aesthetic biomes across an archipelago of space habitats.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Part of what makes this whole issue so interesting is that since no one is claiming Star Trek technology (fantasy) that would see terraforming undertaken on the order of a generation or two, the time spans inevitably involved are sufficient for sure to sort of mix type 2 and 3 thinking. Given that a century ago, most people were still using horses and carts to get around, it goes without saying that an awful lot can, and probably will, barring our own destruction, happen in the next century.

This is a school of thought I have encountered a fair bit. While I agree that a lot can change in a century, the nature of development has changed quite a bit, were now getting to the limits of what we know to be physically possible - as in we can postulate what is theoretically achievable and not.

A lot of the sort of technology we are talking about is fantastical in that there are no working models - its essentially a theoretical model, which we know to be accurate given the variables we can plug into it. The fact is GR comes into things now, we understand the laws under which the universe operates, those laws cannot be broken so by extension we can theorise almost all things possible given the correct variables and understanding of the mechanism. Theory and working models are totally different.

I mean in the short term we are talking about redirecting asteroids and creating an entire atmosphere, then developing an atmosphere, somehow getting a magnetosphere, developing an ecology and an earthlike air composition. It all sounds totally pop sci-fi to me and while I love the theory and ideas I feel it is only that.

The motivations and ethics of terraforming are very interesting. Personally I think planetary scale terraforming is unethical if there is a chance that there is life (however primitive) on the surface. Purely because if you can terraform a planet you can easily core out an asteroid, give it a spin and terraform the inside to make an O'Neill cylinder. This way you can avoid the hassle of a gravity well, get a far higher habitable surface area per mass and generate a higher diversity of aesthetic biomes across an archipelago of space habitats.

The ethics are odd, on a speculative note it would be xenocide of a planets entire species if the terraforming process was destructive.

The habitation of an asteroid rather than a planet has many advantages, if being speculative; access to low G areas for the application of certain technologies theorized to be easily developed in low G environments, easy access to low fuel consumption delivery of supplies, essentially you could make the asteroid a mobile home (move it into different orbits using minimal fuel) and then launching missions from close to target, and pribably lots of other things.

However, again being speculative, complete terraforming of a planet is on a totally different scale to anything else and would of course be the best alternative for an alternative settlement for mankind.

Anyway my post has descended into a sci fi novella...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

However, again being speculative, complete terraforming of a planet is on a totally different scale to anything else and would of course be the best alternative for an alternative settlement for mankind.

I would disagree because if we have the capability to terraform other planets we have the capability to maintain Earth's biosphere in a stable manner and surround it with habitats that benefit from all the advantages you mentioned.

 

[Pilot7]

...if you can terraform a planet you can easily core out an asteroid, give it a spin and terraform the inside to make an O'Neill cylinder. This way you can avoid the hassle of a gravity well, get a far higher habitable surface area per mass and generate a higher diversity of aesthetic biomes across an archipelago of space habitats.

I am quite convinced by your reasoning here, maybe that explains why no one came and did this to us...

A note to Cosmo Novice--Even if we accepted physical theory in a close to complete form (I do not, I think GTR and QT are going to get really smashed up before we are through), biology is definitely not as advanced in some analogical way. There are really big puzzles without answers still. And by extension, ecology is really a babe science--I think this is one of the key points articulated in this thread. We have yet to even see the equivalence of the Copernican revolution in ecology, even if maybe we saw some kind of correspondent in biology with the discovery of DNA and the genome.

I think it was Kelvin who said around 1900 something like (my paraphrase): We have now pretty much resolved all the issues in physics, the hard part is done, we are just sorting out some details now...

Needless to say, the next 4 or so years saw most of what comprises contemporary physics conceived. So I wouldn't hold on to your cars and horses too tightly ;-)

 

[Cosmo Novice]

I would disagree because if we have the capability to terraform other planets we have the capability to maintain Earth's biosphere in a stable manner and surround it with habitats that benefit from all the advantages you mentioned.

Sorry I should have explained myself a little clearer. When i talk about a "best option" I am assuming we need terraforming capabilities and massive scale habitable environments as Earth alternatives due to specific reasons. (Nuclear fallout, lack of resources/space due to population etc.)

As a first alternative then maintaining Earths biosphere is the most economical use of recourse - I am effectively stipulating to a point where even with a stable and maintained biosphere there is a NEED to colonise other planets (the main reason I am thinking is production of foodstuffs).

As you have an Asimov quote, to give an anaology I am referring to a Caves of Steel type future civilisation, but with more caves and less country. :)

 

[qraal]

Can increasing the thickness of the atmosphere compensate for lack of a magnetic field?

This is a common misunderstanding. Earth's atmosphere provides us with protection from radiation, not the magnetosphere. There's 10 tonnes of air above every square meter of Earth which stops radiation from flares and high-energy cosmic rays. The magnetosphere diverts the solar wind and coronal mass ejections, but neither of those is especially harmful as their average particle energy is low. That might sound odd, because of those deadly Van Allen Belts trapped by Earth's magnetic field. But those same Belts are trapped around Earth by the magnetic fields and the deadly radiation is from high-energy cosmic rays smashing into the atmosphere and the resulting particles being trapped.

Even more debatable is whether the magnetic fields stopped/stop atmospheric escape - Venus has no field and lots of air - or whether Mars lost its atmosphere just because it was too small.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Even more debatable is whether the magnetic fields stopped/stop atmospheric escape - Venus has no field and lots of air - or whether Mars lost its atmosphere just because it was too small.

As I understood it the protection the magnetosphere was mainly due to the magnetic bowshock redirecting solar winds that would otherwise strip our atmosphere away fairly quickly.

This is not debatable as far as I am aware so I will try and dig out some supporting papers - I am fairly certain this is known science.

 

[qraal]

As I understood it the protection the magnetosphere was mainly due to the magnetic bowshock redirecting solar winds that would otherwise strip our atmosphere away fairly quickly.

This is not debatable as far as I am aware so I will try and dig out some supporting papers - I am fairly certain this is known science.

Presently the solar wind strips the atmosphere of Mars away at a few kilograms per second. Earth's loss rate would be even lower. The solar wind was, based on observations of young stars extrapolated to our own, perhaps 1,000 times stronger in the past. Thus the basis of the claim it can strip atmospheres away. But not anymore. Takes billions of years nowadays.

 

[D H]

I think it was Kelvin who said around 1900 something like (my paraphrase): We have now pretty much resolved all the issues in physics, the hard part is done, we are just sorting out some details now...

This supposed quote is a bit off-topic, but since this is a widely-replicated supposed quote, it merits correction. You are talking about a quote along the lines of this one at scienceworld.wolfram.com, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." That quote was supposedly made in Thomson's 1900 address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, "Nineteenth Century Clouds over the Dynamical Theory of Heat and Light."

A funny thing about that quote: It's false. You can find the text of the speech here, printed two years after the speech: http://books.google.com/books?id=YvoAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363#v=onepage&q&f=false.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Presently the solar wind strips the atmosphere of Mars away at a few kilograms per second. Earth's loss rate would be even lower. The solar wind was, based on observations of young stars extrapolated to our own, perhaps 1,000 times stronger in the past. Thus the basis of the claim it can strip atmospheres away. But not anymore. Takes billions of years nowadays.

Can you please link a supporting article/source, I find this really interesting.

thanks in advance

 

[qraal]

Can you please link a supporting article/source, I find this really interesting.

thanks in advance

Energy balance and momentum of the present solar wind is enough to demonstrate that. But do a Google on the mass loss rate from Mars at present. Alternatively have a look at the NASA ADS and do a fuller search.

 

[Nikitin]

Can increasing the thickness of the atmosphere compensate for lack of a magnetic field?

Yes, it can. Engineering the atmosphere could even stop UVC radiation.

Anyway, not to piss people off again, but much of the solar radiation, except the UV and onwards electromagnetic radiation, reaching Mars is quite harmless isn't it? Electromagnetic radiation with >400nm wavelength and some alpha particles (these ones don't reach Earth due to the magnetosphere).

A few (100?) rads of alpha particles/+ions here and there won't really hurt anyone in an enclosed suit.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, it can. Engineering the atmosphere could even stop UVC radiation.

Anyway, not to piss people off again, but much of the solar radiation, except the UV and onwards electromagnetic radiation, reaching Mars is quite harmless isn't it? Electromagnetic radiation with >400nm wavelength and some alpha particles (these ones don't reach Earth due to the magnetosphere).

A few (100?) rads of alpha particles/+ions here and there won't really hurt anyone in an enclosed suit.

People were not "pissed off". They were getting frustrated because you were handwaving away very complex, technical and interesting issues that they had taken the time to explain to you (remember no one is under any obligation to do that).

I am unsure about how bad the radiation would be on Mars if there were a thick atmosphere, the atmosphere on Mars would have to be much thicker than that of Earth's to account for the face that Mars has a lower gravity. This means an equal amount of atmosphere would not cause the same pressure obviously necessary for life.

Leading on from this the atmosphere engineering of Mars could have much harder problems to solve, if the atmosphere needs to be 3x thicker to provide the same pressure then we may have problems with the amount of radiation absorbed. In addition martian weather systems could be drastically different from Earth's if the atmosphere was much denser, how this would effect the ecology would have to be carefully considered.

As this goes on more and more I feel that space habitats are a far better option and that to even begin terraforming we are going to need a knowledge of synthetic biology far, far beyond that of today.

 

[Hells]

Why do you have to account for ecology? The only cycle you would have to consider is O2+Cx --> CO2 + H20 --> Cx + O2
On Earth plants are responsible for sequestering Carbon from CO2, but it should be possible to design machines that do the same,
Energy consumption per human: 2200 Kcal = 9 204.8 kJ
Since all the energy comes from oxidation of fuel, we need at least this number of energy to make oxygen. Let's assume that our machine can reverse the reaction with 20% efficiency, the machine will require energy of 46002 kj per human per day to turn CO2 into Cx + O2 to not see a decrease in [O2]. 3600 kJ = 1 kilowatt-hour

The only problem is if our water doesn't condense because there's too low amount of it available, and it will never saturate parts of the atmosphere. Water will be locked in as humidity. A machine can help here as well, by pressuring a part of the atmosphere in a containment vessel.

Terraforming just means making a planet suitable for human habitation, it doesn't mean make it suitable for plant or animal life. Farming could be in sealed domes, with import of specialty nutrients. (bulk water, O2 and CO2 would be available.)

 

[qraal]

Why do you have to account for ecology? The only cycle you would have to consider is O2+Cx --> CO2 + H20 --> Cx + O2
On Earth plants are responsible for sequestering Carbon from CO2, but it should be possible to design machines that do the same,
Energy consumption per human: 2200 Kcal = 9 204.8 kJ
Since all the energy comes from oxidation of fuel, we need at least this number of energy to make oxygen. Let's assume that our machine can reverse the reaction with 20% efficiency, the machine will require energy of 46002 kj per human per day to turn CO2 into Cx + O2 to not see a decrease in [O2]. 3600 kJ = 1 kilowatt-hour

The only problem is if our water doesn't condense because there's too low amount of it available, and it will never saturate parts of the atmosphere. Water will be locked in as humidity. A machine can help here as well, by pressuring a part of the atmosphere in a containment vessel.

Terraforming just means making a planet suitable for human habitation, it doesn't mean make it suitable for plant or animal life. Farming could be in sealed domes, with import of specialty nutrients. (bulk water, O2 and CO2 would be available.)

A good technologist uses the best available technology for the task. Self-replicating bioconverters - i.e. bacteria, archaea, plants and animals - are amazingly more advanced than our current best efforts. Employing very high-power technology for raw conversion of a planet is attractive because it shortens the time-table immensely, but how long does it take to make such a uber-tech system powerful enough?

Paul Birch considered these issues for both Mars and Venus in a duology of papers "Terraforming Mars Quickly" and "Terraforming Venus Quickly". Look them up on "Google" and educate yourselves. The size requirements of the necessary machines is breath-taking and requires a very large in-space economy.

 

[Hells]

1. I am talking about upkeep
2. Haven't we already established that the bioconverters require an ecosystem? That's what we wish to eliminate. We can, for example, use artificial photosynthesis.

 

[D H]

1. I am talking about upkeep
2. Haven't we already established that the bioconverters require an ecosystem? That's what we wish to eliminate. We can, for example, use artificial photosynthesis.

That is a solution in a hand-wavy, science fiction world where perpetually-TRL 1 technology can solve all of the world's problems.

This site is not such a world. We have rules against overly-speculative posts, and this thread has tons of such. Keep it real please, or this thread is locked.

 

[Drakkith]

How can you add an atmosphere of sufficient pressure if the gravity on Mars is only about 1/3 of Earths? Especially once it heats up. Wouldn't much of it disappear?

 

[Nikitin]

No I don't think so. At least not the CO2. The gas needs to get an appropriate escape velocity first.

Though due to the lack of a proper magnetosphere Mars' atmosphere will constantly decay, tho it'l take many millions of years b4 the result is noticeable.

Ryan: I believe the radiation would be somewhere around 2 millirads/day or so on average today for a human on Mars, with the increase coming mostly from + charged ions. I don't think that will hurt anyone once Mars has a proper atmosphere.

I don't think the atmosphere needs to have 3x the molar density than Earth's just because of the lack of gravity.. The pressure equilibrium would obviously arrange itself different from Earth's though and so we'd need some more.

I don't anything about fluid dynamics, so if you read the paper from the NASA physicist which I provided in page 2 you'd see it would be, most likely, doable with just the CO2 reserves in the Martian soil & the dry ice.

 

[qraal]

Yes, it can. Engineering the atmosphere could even stop UVC radiation.

Anyway, not to piss people off again, but much of the solar radiation, except the UV and onwards electromagnetic radiation, reaching Mars is quite harmless isn't it? Electromagnetic radiation with >400nm wavelength and some alpha particles (these ones don't reach Earth due to the magnetosphere).

A few (100?) rads of alpha particles/+ions here and there won't really hurt anyone in an enclosed suit.

The solar wind gets mostly deflected around the present day Martian and Venusian atmospheres via their ionospheres, the charges being enough to deflect much of the wind around the planets. A bit of atmosphere is stripped away - the total having been measured by Mars Express as a couple of kilograms a second - but nowhere near enough to strip the atmosphere away in less than aeons. The radiation that reaches the surface that is of concern during solar flares is from x-rays. Cosmic-rays are significantly higher, but no more so than what is encountered on the ISS. On Earth they run into gas molecules much higher up and their secondary radiation has mostly decayed into muons by the time it reaches the surface.