Terraforming nearby planets

[TransformerRobot]

Another idea I was thinking of for my alien character was that she is part of a new species created in a special laboratory, through the splicing of humans and another animal, so that whatever happens to us our genes will be carried on through them.

 

They would need a planet to live on near Earth, so I was thinking Mars, because Mars would be easier to work with than Venus.

 

How would we be able to terraform Mars, and when would we be able to do so?

 

I was thinking that we could use a device to heat up the surface of Mars, melting the CO2 below the surface, freeing it back into the atmosphere, causing a greenhouse effect to get more heat from the sun, melting the Martian ice, thus creating oceans. The only problem I've encountered now is restoring Mars' magnetic field.

[space noob]

I'm a tad drunk now but I believe the mars rover has just woken up, it's task is to measure the wobble if mars to experiment with terraforming mars, a wobble is a big problem, or moon does a lot to help with our planet, mars may be a problem if the wobble is too severe

[TransformerRobot]

I'm a tad drunk now but I believe the mars rover has just woken up, it's task is to measure the wobble if mars to experiment with terraforming mars, a wobble is a big problem, or moon does a lot to help with our planet, mars may be a problem if the wobble is too severe

 

But Mars has 2 moons, or are you suggesting having a second moon is the problem?

[the asinine cretin]

Zubrin's The Case for Mars talks about how Mars might be terraformed. It's a good read all around. There is also a Springer book that comes to mind called Terraforming. There are a lot of interesting ideas out there. Sad to say that while Venus is one of my favorite worlds, I've been forced to give up on the dream of terraforming it. There are some problems that I think are insurmountable. I still like the idea of aerostatic Venusian outposts and colonies though.

[TransformerRobot]

I don't have either of those books, so I'd have to look for them at my local library.

[the asinine cretin]

I don't have either of those books, so I'd have to look for them at my local library.

 

Sorry about that. Here are some documents available on the internet that may be interesting. The third from the top is coauthored by Zubrin.

 

A Model for Mars Ecosynthesis (PDF)

 

The Terraformation of Worlds (PDF)

 

Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars

 

Terraforming Mars: A Review of Research

[TransformerRobot]

Sorry about that. Here are some documents available on the internet that may be interesting. The third from the top is coauthored by Zubrin.

 

A Model for Mars Ecosynthesis (PDF)

 

The Terraformation of Worlds (PDF)

 

Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars

 

Terraforming Mars: A Review of Research

 

Well, the first 2 on this list say "by 2100" and "900+ years", my show is set in 2135, so now I'm getting somewhere, thank you.

[space noob]

But Mars has 2 moons, or are you suggesting having a second moon is the problem?

 

Not at all, obviously we don't know to much about the wobble but without our moon the earth would wobble, if mars' moons aren't big enough or close enough to counteract the wobble then that could be the cause

[TransformerRobot]

Not at all, obviously we don't know to much about the wobble but without our moon the earth would wobble, if mars' moons aren't big enough or close enough to counteract the wobble then that could be the cause

 

So if the planet has a wobble would it be not possible to terraform?

[the asinine cretin]

Not at all, obviously we don't know to much about the wobble but without our moon the earth would wobble, if mars' moons aren't big enough or close enough to counteract the wobble then that could be the cause

 

Mars is easily millions of times more massive than both its moons combined. I think there is no way that their influence could attenuate the planet's obliquity like our moon does. Even in the case of a moonless Earth, we're talking about cycles that occur over tens of thousands of years. Presumably a civilization with terraforming capabilities could adapt over those timescales. I just did a quick Google search and the precession cycle on Mars is 175,000 Earth years. Another thing is that there is research that contradicts the claim that without our moon the Earth's axial tilt would vary to a much greater magnitude. I recall posting a paper last year (I think not on this forum, however) which studied the question and found it to not matter so much. I'll find it later.

 

I'm thinking it was something from the AAS meeting last year. One moment.

 

I found the SETI talk version. (Incidentally, SETI has I think my favorite channel on youtube.)

 

 

[space noob]

I always got told the moon was very important and when it drifts away it will cause a wobble, guess you can't believe everything your told

[D H]

In this case you can. The Moon is very important for stabilizing the Earth's orientation. Mars has undergone, and will continue to undergo, huge swings in its obliquity. Venus also went through a chaotic phase in the past, but it's current configuration is stable.

[CaptainPanic]

Wobble

I'm no expert on wobbling... How many degrees of wobble could we expect to see on Mars? And what would be the frequency between a minimum and a maximum?

 

Life can deal with seasons, and entire ecosystems can migrate (on a longer time scale, like ice ages), so some changes in the climate are acceptable. You can still have a working ecosystem.

 

How bad is this wobble of Mars?

 

Water

Most of the sources (links) that are mentioned above only deal with how we could heat up Mars. Their plans go like this:

- Heat Mars a bit

- Some solid CO2 will enter the atmosphere

- Mars gets a severe case of global warming, which in turn releases more CO2

- Plant some microorganisms, then tundra, then other plants.

 

It is the last stage that I do not believe. Those first microorganisms will die, because there will not be enough water yet. You cannot plant any plants until the atmosphere of Mars is completely warmed up. I'll explain:

 

I cannot find how these people plan to start the water cycle of Mars. Contrary to Earth, Mars is effectively a freeze dryer. (Earth is more like a reflux distillation or something - but that's irrelevant). We have liquid water which flows. We have liquid water that evaporates at the equator. But the Martian water just accumulates where it is coldest, and where the vapor pressure of water is lowest. Even during our Earth ice ages, the water levels of the oceans dropped significantly. Mars has far less water available, and much colder temperatures. There will be no liquid water. And with all the liquid/solid water reservoirs located at the poles, the water content of the atmosphere will never exceed that of the vapor pressure at the poles. So, the effect will be like you feel on a cold and dry winter day, inside the house. Because the air contains so little water outside, and because the temperature inside is high enough, your lips crack and your skin feels dry. Mars would be like that. All the moisture would be sucked out of every living cell. And once gone, it cannot be recovered.

 

I believe (but I am no expert) that in order to get the water cycle of Mars to work, water must melt at the poles, and flow towards warmer areas, where is should evaporate. If it doesn't, all the water will just accumulate at the poles, and the rest of the planet will be a desert, with an air moisture content so low that life is impossible.

 

Therefore, I believe that a greenhouse (with an artificially maintained amount of water in its atmosphere/soil) is the only viable option for growing plants.

[the asinine cretin]

I always got told the moon was very important and when it drifts away it will cause a wobble, guess you can't believe everything your told

If this is in response to my post you've gotten the wrong impression. The moon is very important and the range of obliquity variations would surely be much greater if Earth were moonless. I wasn't denying this, but pointing out that at last year's AAS meeting a paper was presented which significantly lowered the range of probable variation from previous modelling. My basic thought is that this new range, coupled with the time scales involved, don't pose a "show stopping" obstacle for terraforming.

 

 

Perhaps confusingly dovetailed together with that bit of info (although a distinct topic) was the idea that if we assume that a civilization has the capability of terraforming Mars on millennial or centennial time scales, then they presumably have the ability to adapt and cope with the 175,000 year Martian precession cycle.

 

 

P.S. I am sorry that I was unable to find the AAS paper mentioned. While I've yet to watch it (hopefully today) I can safely say that the above SETI talk covers what was in the AAS presentation.

Edited May 29, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[TransformerRobot]

This just occurred to me, but is there any kind of phenomena that would make Mars' moons move in closer to their planet?

 

Also, what would happen if we tried to terraform our own moon? Would it loose it's beneficial properties that it has now for Earth?

 

For the time being, while a planet is being terraformed, are domed cities on it's surface a valid option? On our moon and Mars it could be possible, obviously not on Venus.

Edited May 29, 2012 by TransformerRobot

[the asinine cretin]

This just occurred to me, but is there any kind of phenomena that would make Mars' moons move in closer to their planet?

 

Also, what would happen if we tried to terraform our own moon? Would it loose it's beneficial properties that it has now for Earth?

 

For the time being, while a planet is being terraformed, are domed cities on it's surface a valid option? On our moon and Mars it could be possible, obviously not on Venus.

 

That's a good thought. I don't know about Deimos off the top of my head but I know that Phobos is slowly decelerating due to tidal forces and will impact Mars at some point in the future. I think I'd remember if this were to happen in human-relevant time scales. I'd guess a scale of at least millions of years. I'd look it up but I hear thunder and have to power down this machine... damn it.

[D H]

What is the attraction for terraforming?

 

• It is too far in the future. Want some laughs? Dig up some Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines from the 1950s where they try to predict fifty years into the future. They got almost everything wrong. Trying to predict 100 years or more into the future now is even more of a laughable endeavor. The world is changing at an even faster pace now than it was in the 1950s.
   
  
• It is fraught with political peril. Politicians have a hard time committing to anything long-term. This is a very long-term project.
   
  
• It is fraught with economic peril. Terraforming would be a massively expensive venture. Once started, it would have to be followed through to completion without interruption. A multi-year hiatus due to some future economic collapse could easily set the project back to step one.
   
  
• It is fraught with ecological peril on Earth. What if life is discovered on Mars? This is a huge uncertainty, and a huge risk. Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars faction is somewhat real right now, and would become very real should life be discovered on Mars.
   
  
• It is fraught with ecological peril on Mars. The focus of most terraforming articles is on the physics and chemistry. The messy biological issues are just hand-waved away. Ask a biologist for their opinions on the viability of those proposed terraforming efforts.
   
  
• It isn't scalable. Instead it's an all or nothing kind of venture. Habitats are scalable. Exploiting asteroids is scalable.

 

Terraforming is counterproductive to the goal of a permanent human presence in space, at least for the foreseeable future. Terraforming is a project for two or more generations into the future. Leave that problem to them. Our problem now is to get a start on that permanent human presence in space so that the people two or more generations in the future have a chance at that.

 

That's assuming that our successors two or three generations into the future will even want to terraform another planet. Why go back down into a deep gravity well once we've learned how to reliably and safely get out of one on a regular basis?

[TransformerRobot]

What is the attraction for terraforming?

 

• It is too far in the future. Want some laughs? Dig up some Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines from the 1950s where they try to predict fifty years into the future. They got almost everything wrong. Trying to predict 100 years or more into the future now is even more of a laughable endeavor. The world is changing at an even faster pace now than it was in the 1950s.
• It is fraught with political peril. Politicians have a hard time committing to anything long-term. This is a very long-term project.
• It is fraught with economic peril. Terraforming would be a massively expensive venture. Once started, it would have to be followed through to completion without interruption. A multi-year hiatus due to some future economic collapse could easily set the project back to step one.
• It is fraught with ecological peril on Earth. What if life is discovered on Mars? This is a huge uncertainty, and a huge risk. Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars faction is somewhat real right now, and would become very real should life be discovered on Mars.
• It is fraught with ecological peril on Mars. The focus of most terraforming articles is on the physics and chemistry. The messy biological issues are just hand-waved away. Ask a biologist for their opinions on the viability of those proposed terraforming efforts.
• It isn't scalable. Instead it's an all or nothing kind of venture. Habitats are scalable. Exploiting asteroids is scalable.

 

Terraforming is counterproductive to the goal of a permanent human presence in space, at least for the foreseeable future. Terraforming is a project for two or more generations into the future. Leave that problem to them. Our problem now is to get a start on that permanent human presence in space so that the people two or more generations in the future have a chance at that.

 

That's assuming that our successors two or three generations into the future will even want to terraform another planet. Why go back down into a deep gravity well once we've learned how to reliably and safely get out of one on a regular basis?

 

Well can we still try making domed cities on Mars and the Moon? We're at a population of 7 billion people now, and we're running out of living spaces. Sure, there's underwater cities in our own oceans, but think of the pollution we're already spewing into the sea.

[D H]

Well can we still try making domed cities on Mars and the Moon? We're at a population of 7 billion people now, and we're running out of living spaces. Sure, there's underwater cities in our own oceans, but think of the pollution we're already spewing into the sea.

Unless you have a magical portal that opens up onto some alternate unpeopled Earth, going into space is not a solution to the overpopulation problem. The human population is currently growing by 78 million people per year. Suppose we advance our spaceship technology to such an extent that one spaceship can carry 1,000 people. We would to have over 200 launches per day to offset that growth of 78 million people per year. That assumes there is somewhere in space to put those 78 million people.

 

The Earth's overpopulation problem must be solved right here on Earth.

[space noob]

I agree with transformer robot, terraforming a near by planet such as mars may become a necessity, the population is increasing at an extremely fast rate, what we should do is expand into the desert parts of the globe, possibly go forward with the solar panel belt on the moon which will meet global demand, our government here in England has said we will run out of oil by 2030-40 and is investing heavily in natural energy, with the recession on everywhere I doubt we can meet demand before we run out as we don't expect to turn a profit until 2022, but I think natural energy should be the main focus of or government

If we can create a way to inhabit mars i'm sure we would be more than capable of sending people there

Edited May 29, 2012 by space noob

[the asinine cretin]

That's a good thought. I don't know about Deimos off the top of my head but I know that Phobos is slowly decelerating due to tidal forces and will impact Mars at some point in the future. I think I'd remember if this were to happen in human-relevant time scales. I'd guess a scale of at least millions of years. I'd look it up but I hear thunder and have to power down this machine... damn it.

 

Continued.

 

This paper suggests that Phobos may break up into an interplanetary ring, or impact the surface, in about 11 million years. I've got nothing on Deimos at the moment and don't care enough to look into it since I'm sure it's far less relevant than Phobos as far as impact is concerned.

[D H]

I agree with transformer robot, terraforming a near by planet such as mars may become a necessity, the population is increasing at an extremely fast rate ...

Space is not going to solve that problem for a number of reasons.

 

One is that we do not now have either the technology to terraform Mars or the technology to move massive numbers of people from Earth to Mars. Terraforming Mars and getting large numbers of people into space are problems for our children's children's children to solve. Compare to the population problem: We collectively are having too many children right now. We need to solve this problem soon, not 100 years from now.

 

Another is the demographics of the overpopulation problem. Overpopulation is not a problem in Western Europe or in Russia or in Japan. If anything, these nations have the reverse problem. Their birth rate is less than that needed to sustain the population. Overpopulation is not a problem in the US or Canada. They still have plenty of room for growth. Overpopulation is a lessening problem in China as well. Except for India, overpopulation is not a concern amongst any the spacefaring nations. The overpopulation problem is a problem of the developing and underdeveloped world. Those nations do not have the resources to develop space technologies. Many of them barely have the resources to build roads, let alone spaceships.

 

Finally, the billions of humans that exist now have the breeding capacity to overwhelm even the most aggressive of space technologies. We could even outbreed that magical portal I mentioned in my prior post.

 

 

Space technology is not a way to address our current overpopulation problem. Far in the future, it will perhaps be a way to address our underpopulation problem. That there are seven billion of us humans is a problem. It is far too small a number.

Edited May 29, 2012 by D H

[the asinine cretin]

D H,

I was having some layout issues with the bullets when using normal quote blocks so I've decided to respond inline with bold text. Forgive me if this is difficult to read.

 

What is the attraction for terraforming?

Basically all of the reasons that we might want to have a human presence on Mars. Exploration, development of resources, building a space-faring civilization, et cetera, et cetera. The value of Mars for these things could be greatly enhanced by modifying its environment. Also just the kind of wonder that drives a lot of futurist speculation.

• It is too far in the future. I'm interested in terraforming but that doesn't imply that I think it's plausible in the foreseeable future. There are crude "plans" that are more realistic than others, but I can't imagine actually supporting a concrete terraforming endeavor in my lifetime. Want some laughs? Dig up some Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazines from the 1950s where they try to predict fifty years into the future. They got almost everything wrong. Trying to predict 100 years or more into the future now is even more of a laughable endeavor. The world is changing at an even faster pace now than it was in the 1950s. Speculating about what may be possible is still as interesting as it was back then. Why shouldn't people think about such things? Science fiction has often inspired scientific and technological reality -- there's another side to that coin. And while I'm far from an expert, there are some pretty knowledgeable folks who have devoted some of their time to the subject. It's not merely fiction. But assessing the plausibility is part of the topic. The example of Carl Sagan's classic paper on terraforming Venus comes to mind. Reconnaissance revealed that the sheer volume of carbon in the Venusian atmosphere rendered Sagan's plan implausible. To me that paper was not therefore a waste of time. But not to go off on a rant...
• It is fraught with political peril. Politicians have a hard time committing to anything long-term. This is a very long-term project. I think the terraforming literature that I've seen would agree. The epic challenges are part of what is interesting about the subject.
• It is fraught with economic peril. Terraforming would be a massively expensive venture. Once started, it would have to be followed through to completion without interruption. A multi-year hiatus due to some future economic collapse could easily set the project back to step one. There are many perils for sure.
• It is fraught with ecological peril on Earth. What if life is discovered on Mars? This is a huge uncertainty, and a huge risk. Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars faction is somewhat real right now, and would become very real should life be discovered on Mars. I am very much a proponent of planetary protection measures considering that we've barely scratched the surface in Mars exploration, but the terraforming discussion is very speculative and this isn't an objection to having that discussion. My view is that if Martian biology exists (not likely) terraforming may be out of the question, but more for ethical reasons than from fear of back contamination (I currently find there to be compelling responses to the back contamination fears). But I won't assume that our descendants will see things the same way - perhaps they'll "terraform" in a way that works with the existing biota. Anyway, these are all highly speculative scenarios and I think it's at least as likely that Mars is sterile.
• It is fraught with ecological peril on Mars. The focus of most terraforming articles is on the physics and chemistry. The messy biological issues are just hand-waved away. Ask a biologist for their opinions on the viability of those proposed terraforming efforts. Which is one of many reasons why "we" are not going to terraform Mars. But it is possible in principle, given a sufficiently capable future civilization.
• It isn't scalable. Instead it's an all or nothing kind of venture. Habitats are scalable. Exploiting asteroids is scalable.
  I don't believe the first part of this statement is true; the second part is in dispute by no one as far as I know. Mars would approach a fully habitable environment and each stage along the way would bring considerable value. Greater atmospheric pressure, warming temperatures, availability of water and other resources, more protection from radiation and small impacts, and so on. I think I'm misinterpreting you given how standard this is.

 

Terraforming is counterproductive to the goal of a permanent human presence in space, at least for the foreseeable future. Yes, I agree. I had to shut down the enthusiasms of a friend recently when this topic came up. And yet it is no less interesting and enjoyable a topic for me.

Terraforming is a project for two or more generations into the future. Leave that problem to them. Our problem now is to get a start on that permanent human presence in space so that the people two or more generations in the future have a chance at that.

I don't agree with this dichotomizing. I think it's valuable to consider the far future and the remote possibilities. To allow for wonder and free speculation. There is no reason why this would necessarily distract from the near-term practical goals. There is no tension or dichotomy as I see thing.

 

That's assuming that our successors two or three generations into the future will even want to terraform another planet. Why go back down into a deep gravity well once we've learned how to reliably and safely get out of one on a regular basis?

I like to imagine the possibilities. The introduction of life on Mars. The evolution of very distinct Martian biology. Perhaps human speciation will occur and there will be distinctly Martian people fully adapted to a terraformed but still VERY different Martian environment. I like to imagine touring Mars in a speeder bike. Exploring the vast canyons and mountains. Given the gravity perhaps our Martian descendants will take up human-powered (err, Martian-powered) flight as a typical mode of transportation and recreation. And endless more speculations. I vividly imagine the landscapes and the scenes. The alien flora and fauna. Even the distinct architectures and cuisines. This is of course pure science fiction and fantasy, but to me it is inspiring. Different temperaments perhaps?

 

I must stress the very different types of discussion here. The latter fantasy is in a separate compartment from the more technical type of literature that seeks to explore things on a concrete and practical level (as much as is possible given the issues and limitations you've rightly pointed out.)

 

Space is not going to solve that problem for a number of reasons.

...

The idea that off-loading people to space is a good way to reduce the human footprint on Earth is irksome to me. Wrong on so many levels. Thanks for addressing that so well.

Edited May 29, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[TransformerRobot]

Then all else I can say now is spread the awareness of, and encourage people to use, birth control. Our own ecological footprint is threatening such ecosystems as the Australian rainforest and South American Amazon. Having 7 billion humans now is part of the problem. We need to use more condoms and encourage healthier life styles, so that those of us who are alive right now will live much longer, so we won't need to have as many children to carry on our genes.

[space noob]

It's true the human race is becoming like a virus for life on earth, as an extremely advanced species we understand responsibilities, we may be facing the fact that earth is not going to support us, that is the reason I think that before we venture out into space we need to inhabit near by planets, the sun won't be around forever but at the same time I need to make a point about my views on advanced species, I don't believe the human race can survive for another 200,000 years, I don't think we could even accomplish half of that, 74 million a year will inevitably increase and increase, condoms or contraceptives won't be used by everyone, for example different religions won't allow them, one child instead of many, isn't only good for the environment but it'd also good for the child, they get the full attention of parents and flourish, I do believe that once the human race gets to large something will happen to diminish the size of the population i.e. war, famine, global Warming or a virus, we can't begin to comprehend what will happen to the human race evolution wise but I have read up on it and I don't think the changes that are predicted to happen are beneficial, there are more near by problems about the future for humans than just space on earth for them to occupy, we need to take action in or generation and set the groundwork for our future generation