Terraforming nearby planets

[TransformerRobot]

Mars is one of the primary transforming possibilities within maybe a thousand years minimum. But I think the moon would be easier. The moon is the right distance from the sun and could be "spun up" as part of the terraforming process. Even though it probably has underground water, we probably would need to import much more from the outer moons or the asteroid belt. We probably could import an atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen, and Co2 in the form of ices with sun shades needed as such ices are imported, also probably from the asteroid belt. My expectation would be that once there is an atmosphere, and a moon-spin fast enough, a magnetic field would almost immediately develop to shield from UV and other deleterious solar radiation. Without direct solar wind, I believe this atmosphere might last maybe thousands of years before needing to be replenished. Manufacturing processing could also produce a regular replenishment of these same molecular gasses.

 

As far as genetic alterations, I would expect that we would engineer both plant and animal life primarily for food purposes to start with, to be better adapted to live in a foreign environment. I would also expect Mars to immediately develop a magnetic field also once it has a substantial atmosphere.

 

Here's a couple of links that might give a clue concerning the possibility that our present model of Earth and Planetary magnetism may be wrong.

 

http://www.nature.co...ll/485319a.html

 

http://www.scienceda...20531102443.htm

 

Venus, I believe, will also eventually be terraformed but I think not in the foreseeable future. I think vast asteroid, space (solar system) colonies, and other planetary moon colonies will come first because they would be easier, cheaper, and more profitable in the foreseeable future.

//

 

Yes, perhaps the moon would be easier than Mars or Venus.

 

Also, are you saying that even if people were planning to live on a terraformed Mars, they would have to be genetically altered to better suit it's atmosphere and climate?

[pantheory]

Come on dude, I know when something is above my pay grade, that's why i asked, you suggested that Mars would form a magnetic field if it had an denser atmosphere then you gave links but the links didn't support your opinion at all, in fact never mentioned it. Why would you expect mars to generate a magnetic field if it had a substantial atmosphere?

 

I could see how spinning the moon, if it still has a molten core might generate a magnetic field, but why would mars?

The first link discussed their findings that the Earth's core appears to be non-conductive. If true the dynamo effect would not be the cause of the Earth's magnetic field or influence the extent of its strength.

 

The second link explains that the moon reacts differently to the solar wind than what theory had predicted.

 

The bottom line to me is that our Theories of planetary magnetism are simply wrong. My expectation is that planetary magnetism has two causes and influences; neither are accordingly related to the core of the planet or moon. The primary cause, I expect, is the relative motion of a relatively dense atmosphere with a liquid and/or solid surface. This causes ionization of the atmosphere and electrical currents through its fluids in the opposite direction of its rotation. The magnetic field would accordingly be created perpendicular to the atmospheric wind for most planets. The second cause of planetary magnetism would be the charged particles from the solar wind that could strengthen a pre-existing magnetic field.

 

The Earth has these condition but Venus' rotation is too slow. Mars' atmosphere is too thin and when it flows in strength and volume (the wind) it is seasonally moving south-north, north-south (primarily water and CO2). The result is a very small east-west magnetic field.

 

The outer planets have a thick atmosphere and thought to have liquid interiors/ surfaces. Being farther from the sun there would be less strengthening of a pre-existing magnetic field by the solar wind. Mercury has a weak magnetic field accordingly due to a miniscule atmosphere and relatively little spin rate. The solar wind there, however, is very strong and may be the only cause of its weak magnetic field. Titan, on the other hand, has a substantial atmosphere, liquid on its surface, but a slow spin rate, about 16 Earth days. It also experiences mush less solar wind per volume of its atmosphere. The result is that it also has only a very weak magnetic field.

 

Magnetic fields could accordingly reverse upon a great solar storm which would overload the atmosphere with an influx of positive ions. The 'Earth's magnetic field is half way between its spin access and its incline to the solar system plane.

 

Of course this is only theory, and not the present mainstream dynamo model of planetary magnetism, which I believe has been contradicted by observations of most planets.

//

 

TransformerRobot,

 

Yes, perhaps the moon would be easier than Mars or Venus.

 

Also, are you saying that even if people were planning to live on a terraformed Mars, they would have to be genetically altered to better suit it's atmosphere and climate?

No, only the plants and animals I think would need modification. I would expect some day there would be a difference in the physical characteristics between native born Martians and Earthlings. Earthlings, for one thing, would probably be stronger because of its gravity, resulting in native born Martians not doing as well physically on Earth.

//

Edited June 1, 2012 by pantheory

[TransformerRobot]

No, only the plants and animals I think would need modification. I would expect some day there would be a difference in the physical characteristics between native born Martians and Earthlings. Earthlings, for one thing, would probably be stronger because of its gravity, resulting in native born Martians not doing as well physically on Earth.

 

So if we would be stronger or faster physically if we were somewhere with weaker gravity?

[pantheory]

Earthlings would be stronger and faster than people that were born and lived on Mars, without their extra exercise and aerobics such as running with weights fastened to them.

 

Muscle deterioration happens even faster in space. Some astronauts and cosmonauts have found it difficult to walk and function when first coming back after spending some time in space.

 

Geriatric daily living, for instance, would be much easier on the moon and broken hips from falling would be uncommon. After maybe a year on the moon without substantial regular exercise, a person in a moon nursing home might not be able to ever walk again on Earth if they ever came back here.

//

Edited June 1, 2012 by pantheory

[TransformerRobot]

So if someone was born on a planet three times as big as Earth, they would grow up to develop stronger muscles?

[pantheory]

So if someone was born on a planet three times as big as Earth, they would grow up to develop stronger muscles?

I don't know about a planet three times larger, there would be a limit how big a planet could be for human genetics to continue to function properly. But a larger planet in general, if we were eventually able to function, would seemingly produce bigger muscles. Could we live longer (rhetorical)? We probably would live for a shorter period of time with increased gravity. Could we live longer on a planet with a little less gravity than Earth (rhetorical)? Maybe some people would

//

Edited June 1, 2012 by pantheory

[TransformerRobot]

I don't know about a planet three times larger, there would be a limit how big a planet could be for human genetics to continue to function properly. But a larger planet in general, if we were eventually able to function, would seemingly produce bigger muscles. Could we live longer (rhetorical)? We probably would live for a shorter period of time with increased gravity. Could we live longer on a planet with a little less gravity than Earth (rhetorical)? Maybe some people would

 

Then would there be a way for inhabitants of a planet with higher gravity to live longer? Maybe give them stronger bone systems?

[pantheory]

Then would there be a way for inhabitants of a planet with higher gravity to live longer? Maybe give them stronger bone systems?

Human inhabitants could be genetically selected for muscularity and longevity traits. In a few hundred generations a better adapted breed of humans could be created. In the future we probably will also be able to identify which genes are most suitable for a particular environment and build a new human genetically without going through intermediate steps .

//

Edited June 2, 2012 by pantheory

[TransformerRobot]

This is a little embarrassing, but here's something that recaps what we discussed earlier.

 

 

With what he said in mind, nuclear power plants could be a way to melt the CO2 on Mars to help it's atmosphere, but sending materials to build the plant via spaceship? It sounds rather dangerous, so what precautions would we have to take so that the ship doesn't explode and release radiation into our atmosphere? Lead shielding I think would only keep radiation from making people sick, and it might not be enough to simply keep the fuel line from leaking.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TransformerRobot

[the asinine cretin]

This is a little embarrassing

No need for embarrassment, mate. Thanks for sharing. I love this topic.

[Xelloss]

I don't know about a planet three times larger, there would be a limit how big a planet could be for human genetics to continue to function properly. But a larger planet in general, if we were eventually able to function, would seemingly produce bigger muscles. Could we live longer (rhetorical)? We probably would live for a shorter period of time with increased gravity.

 

Three times larger in what way? If you are talking about the diameter, then I don't think a planet that large would be even solid. At the very least, you would still have to contend with the pressure of the hypothetical atmosphere (it will most certainly be larger than on a smaller planet; and quite possibly there would probably be a planet-wide ocean of some sort), which would probably crush any genetically modified lungs.

 

 

Could we live longer on a planet with a little less gravity than Earth (rhetorical)? Maybe some people would

//

 

 

Our bodies are optimized specifically for Earth gravity. On a planet with less gravity, your muscles would probably have long term problems with atrophy, and your immune system would be weaker. I think it would be a wiser idea to find planets with similar gravity, or even ones with slightly higher gravity than our own.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Xelloss

[pantheory]

This is a little embarrassing, but here's something that recaps what we discussed earlier.

 

 

With what he said in mind, nuclear power plants could be a way to melt the CO2 on Mars to help it's atmosphere, but sending materials to build the plant via spaceship? It sounds rather dangerous, so what precautions would we have to take so that the ship doesn't explode and release radiation into our atmosphere? Lead shielding I think would only keep radiation from making people sick, and it might not be enough to simply keep the fuel line from leaking.

An orbiting nuclear power plant built in lunar orbit could be sent to Mars and then from a Martian orbit it could send down focused microwaves to slowly vaporize the poles. On top of each pole of Mars is carbon dioxide and underneath that there is water ice. The continuing vaporization of the poles would slowly increase the atmospheric pressures and greenhouse temperatures. Although there may be enough CO2 on Mars for some heating, more heating would be needed for colonization. For this the orbiting power plant(s) could focus their microwaves on new colonies maintaining their temperatures. In time other gases could be imported from the asteroid belt, extracted and liquified on the dark side of an asteroid, along with considerable water ice, then towed to Mars and released regularly into the Martian atmosphere. Manufacturing processes of all kinds in Martian orbit could in time produce a substantial ozone layer.

//

Irrigation from the liquified polar ice along with underground drilling for water reservoirs could send out water pumped to new colonies for growing genetically modified plants. Such terraforming would continue to progress as increases in endemic and immigrant populations could implement the processes via labor and support it financially to the farthest terraforming possibilities as time progressed.

//

 

Three times larger in what way? If you are talking about the diameter, then I don't think a planet that large would be even solid. At the very least, you would still have to contend with the pressure of the hypothetical atmosphere (it will most certainly be larger than on a smaller planet; and quite possibly there would probably be a planet-wide ocean of some sort), which would probably crush any genetically modified lungs.

I think the question related to gravity 3 times stronger. A lot of 5-6 hundred pounders there I would expect very few Earthlings could survive such gravity and weight.

 

Our bodies are optimized specifically for Earth gravity. On a planet with less gravity, your muscles would probably have long term problems with atrophy, and your immune system would be weaker. I think it would be a wiser idea to find planets with similar gravity, or even ones with slightly higher gravity than our own.

I agree. I think for lesser gravity we were considering the possibilities of only a little less gravity, maybe .6 to .8 G's. This might be preferable for the well-being and longevity of some people, maybe for nursing home residents that have walking problems. This has already been discussed elsewhere concerning future nursing homes for the wealthy on the Moon.

//

Edited June 4, 2012 by pantheory

[the asinine cretin]

There is reason to think that within 30 light years of Earth there may be dozens, perhaps hundreds of terrestrial worlds, from 0.5 to 1.5 Earth radii, orbiting in the habitable zone about their star(s). Give it a couple more decades of progressive exoplanet research and we'll have plenty of target worlds, I think. Especially with more IR astronomy and studies of M-stars and their planetary systems.

Also, it is possible to have a terrestrial world with a considerably larger mean radius, but lower bulk density, and comparable surface gravity. Point being, it's kind of neat to imagine an Earth-like planet with a great deal more land area. Maybe a large Earth-like world covered in only 50% water and with land area more than twice that of our Earth. It would be interesting to attempt seeding such a world with life, assuming it was found sterile. Perhaps one day it could be colonized. Of course I'm only fantasizing here, but the basic expectation of a fair supply of near-by Earth-like worlds (loosely defined) is sound.

 

Hopefully we survive and have descendants capable of technological feats that would be to us as our feats might be to Homo neanderthalensis. I can't help but wonder what things will be like in the year 39,000 and beyond.

[space noob]

I hear Dr Kevin fong should be working on ways to cope with the gravity changes and from what I've seen of some of his work he's quite good, suits designed for the Luna mission must have some type of workings that help in low G, like the suits used by fighter pilots that inflate at high Gs

[the asinine cretin]

I have mixed feelings about this Mars One project. I'm glad people are taking bold steps at least.

 

http://mars-one.com/

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QoEEGySGm4

 

[D H]

I have mixed feelings about this Mars One project. I'm glad people are taking bold steps at least.

 

http://mars-one.com/

Silly, nonsensical steps. Science fiction can be fun to read, but just because it's fun to read doesn't make it reality. This concept is divorced from reality in every way. It's not even good science fiction. It's just nonsense.

[space noob]

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.

 

Have you considered a bio suit that Shields from the effects of a faulty magnetic field for sun flares etc but the suit being part of their generic make up and grows with them or the gene splicing has overcome the magnetic field problem, if this is in the future then explaining the magnetic field being fixed by an advanced machine for example something like 2 giant electro magnets mimicking the north and south poles creating an artificial magnetic field?

They could be solar powered using solar panels on the surrounding moons to power it,

A large comet maybe crashing into mars could fix the wobble

Edited June 5, 2012 by space noob

[TransformerRobot]

Have you considered a bio suit that Shields from the effects of a faulty magnetic field for sun flares etc but the suit being part of their generic make up and grows with them or the gene splicing has overcome the magnetic field problem, if this is in the future then explaining the magnetic field being fixed by an advanced machine for example something like 2 giant electro magnets mimicking the north and south poles creating an artificial magnetic field?

They could be solar powered using solar panels on the surrounding moons to power it,

A large comet maybe crashing into mars could fix the wobble

 

Well how large would the comet be? Not too large, I'm trying to terraform Mars not blow it to pieces.

[the asinine cretin]

Silly, nonsensical steps. Science fiction can be fun to read, but just because it's fun to read doesn't make it reality. This concept is divorced from reality in every way. It's not even good science fiction. It's just nonsense.

 

I'm not quite that cynical about it, but it does seem like a good recipe for disaster to me. Not a very good way to inaugurate manned exploration of other planets. I'd prefer something based less on romance and more on clear and valuable scientific objectives, and with the ability to abort. I don't think it makes sense to propose permanent colonization as the first step. I thought the old Mars Semi-Direct mission was pretty good. I'm about to start reading Zubrin's updated book The Case for Mars; it should be a good read and I imagine I'll have more opinions about this when I'm done.

 

 

If you don't mind, feel free to elaborate on your thoughts here. I'd like to know what you're thinking more specifically. Thanks.

[space noob]

Well how large would the comet be? Not too large, I'm trying to terraform Mars not blow it to pieces.

 

Good point, how about a very slow moving moon sized object gets caught in mars' gravitational pull? It could be caused by a comet hitting a near by planet launching a part towards mars, it would fix the wobble

Edited June 5, 2012 by space noob

[D H]

If you don't mind, feel free to elaborate on your thoughts here. I'd like to know what you're thinking more specifically. Thanks.

The cost, for starters. Six billion? That's just ridiculous. The recently launched Mars Science Laboratory cost $2.5 billion. Even Mars Direct is five times the cost, and Mars Direct is ludicrously low and overly optimistic in its cost estimation. It's easy to come up with a low price tag if you sweep all the new technology development under the rug, if you assume that untested technologies will work the very first try, if you ignore the two steps forward / one step back nature of developing new technologies, and if you use these untested technologies on humans right off the bat.

 

Another problem is the suicidal nature of the mission. Astronauts and cosmonauts are psychologically rock solid. Candidates must pass a number of psychological tests; even their ancestry is investigated for psychological problems. This is a suicide mission. The kinds of people who would volunteer for such a mission are exactly the kind of people who would go nuts in a very bad way on an extended mission. This isn't just an extended mission. It's permanent.

 

Yet another problem are all of the untested technologies. Cost is just one part of this problem. There's also a does it work / can it work issue. There are so many things we do not know how to do. A partial list:

• We do not know how to grow in isolation all the things needed to sustain human life. We can't even do it on the Earth. Experiments here on the Earth are a history of one failure after another. The only way to do it on Mars involves a magic wand.
  
• We do not know how to perform aerocapture with the Martian atmosphere. Aerobraking has been used, but that takes a long time and also uses extra propellant compared to aerocapture. All of the low cost missions to Mars just assume aerocapture will work as a way to reduce mission cost.
  
• We do not know how to do pinpoint landing on Mars. Multiple landers must land in extremely close proximity to one another to make them useful. The Mars Science Laboratory (which hasn't landed yet) is supposed to improve our pinpoint landing skills to within 20 kilometers. That's not good enough for multiple landers that need to support humans. A factor of ten improvement is pushing it.
  
• We do not know how to do the mining and refining needed to support human life on Mars. It's easy to say that the technology exists for extracting oxygen from CO₂ via the Sabatier process. There's a problem here: Nobody has built a Sabatier reactor for use on Mars. You can't just say that the technology has been used elsewhere. Things don't work that way. The US and Russia have learned that lesson many times over. That's why they are so conservative when it comes to new technologies.

 

One final problem is the reliance on nuclear technology. The nuclear industry was moribund prior to March 2011. Post Fukushima, it is pretty much dead. Society for the most part does not understand nuclear technology other than that it makes us glow in the dark. The kinds of protests NASA saw when it launched RTGs with the Cassini mission are nothing compared to what would happen were some space agency to launch a nuclear reactor. There's a world of difference between what is achievable technologically and what is achievable politically. Right now, and for at least the next decade, using any nuclear technology beyond a radioisotope generator in space is a dead proposition.

[the asinine cretin]

D H,

 

Thanks for taking the time to write up that post. Good stuff to think about. I still don't share your cynicism but I do share those concerns. I like that people are dreaming big and taking on the huge challenges. I hope they succeed. And I think the cost of MSL was ludicrous and way over budget, but it need not have been so. And perhaps these people are assuming Elon Musk's third generation space launch system (and relying on other concurrent and independent developments that are currently planned or in the works) when they say 6 billion. I'd like to read the details on Mars One as I've so far only seen the surface. Thanks again for the thoughts.

Edited June 5, 2012 by the asinine cretin

[TransformerRobot]

D H,

 

Thanks for taking the time to write up that post. Good stuff to think about. I still don't share your cynicism but I do share those concerns. I like that people are dreaming big and taking on the huge challenges. I hope they succeed. And I think the cost of MSL was ludicrous and way over budget, but it need not have been so. And perhaps these people are assuming Elon Musk's third generation space launch system (and relying on other concurrent and independent developments that are currently planned or in the works) when they say 6 billion. I'd like to read the details on Mars One as I've so far only seen the surface. Thanks again for the thoughts.

 

We could raise funds for such a project if we got rid of the tobacco industry.

[D H]

We could raise funds for such a project if we got rid of the tobacco industry.

That's not a solution for multiple reasons. First off, if it did raise money (which it wouldn't), what would justify sending those monies to space exploration? It's a non sequitur. Secondly, it wouldn't raise money. Getting rid of the tobacco industry is a money-loser as far as governments are concerned. Tobacco is heavily taxed at multiple waypoints from the crop to the final product. That final product is so heavily taxed that smokers are a net financial benefit to society rather than a burden. Smokers die young. They pay taxes and then collect minimal retirement because their stupid habit killed them before they could collect much of anything.

 

Drinking, maybe. Drinkers tend to have a problem with gainful employment when they are below retirement age and also have a habit of dying slow, expensive deaths. However, getting rid of the alcohol industry wouldn't work either. We've tried that experiment before. All that that accomplished was to give organized crime a place to flourish.

[the asinine cretin]

TransformerRobot,

 

I read somewhere that the illegal arms trade sucks up a few hundred billion per year. I think human slavery and sex trafficking takes hundreds of billions as well. If humanity were cooler there would be less slavery, killing, and Snooki, and more science, space exploration, and humanitarianism. We're kinda lame still. (I say 'still' because I'm hopeful that we'll have super awesome descendants in the far future.)