Should we terraform Mars?

[Talon1]

Hi there, I was wondering, should we even bother to terraform Mars, I would say yes because if Earth ever goes on a collision coarse with an asteroid, we'll have a place another planet to stay at. So what do you think?

 

[Bj]

Hmm, interesting topic.

I think that Mars is so far away, that launches to Mars would be limited. Not to mention it would take so long to get there. So for humans to travel to Mars, scientists would have to build a livable habitat for humans to exercise, sleep, live, party, drink.... ... anyway, once they get there, then they will have to build some kind of airtight/weather proof tent so people can live/breath in it. Kind of a hostile spot to be in.

But how could they do that? It would take humongous rockets to propel so much weight over there. It would be easier to build another few dozen HSTs and set up a 'lookout' for any incoming asteroids.

If any asteroids are on a collision course, then we can try sending up every nuke we have on this planet, or do an Armageddon thing. :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

Imagine the fun if one month after surviving the first asteroid impact that totals Earth, the rock's smaller cousin comes around to visit Mars...

 

[Dig Gil]

In Armageddon the "heroes" were sort of criminals which in real life it would be like :suicide:; Anyway the film it's cool specially with that russian "spacecraft-repairman" compbash: : "oh! it's working! I knew it was made in Taiwan...").
Terraforming Mars is a ethical way to solve overpopulation, in my opinion.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

well it would certainly give us somewhere to put all our evil CO2 creation skills to good use, and actually have it make a planet more habitable. Much easier said than done though unfortunately...

 

[Dig Gil]

Isn't Mars atmosphere already full of CO2?

 

[Woo482]

no I don't think it is

 

[ryan]

I dont think we should even think of terraforming Mars until 2100, just keep it as it is for now and see what we can get out of it.

 

[Piper]

Maybe, but probably yes. I think it all depends if a large human colony on Mars becomes a reality, and that will probably only happen if there is a demand for a permanent presence (mining, lack of space on Earth, pure human drive, etc.). If we do put a human colony on Mars, I think that terraforming will become an inevitability, just as the widespread colonization of the New World became inevitable once there was a demand for a permanent presence there (furs, trapping, gold, "Christianizing" the "heathen" natives, etc.).

 

[RisingFury]

Isn't Mars atmosphere already full of CO2?

Mostly, yes. But you have to take into account that Martian surface pressure is below 10 Pa. On Earth, it's 100 000 Pa. That's as much as a good laboratory vacuum.


No, I think we shouldn't terraform Mars, even if that was technologically possible. That's just another way to run away from problem. I think we should keep our Earth clean and stay here.

I would approve scientific colonies on Mars and the Moon. I think we have much to gain from that.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Isn't Mars atmosphere already full of CO2?

no I don't think it is

Well I couldn't tell you the composition of the mars atmosphere off the top of my head, but I do know that, compared to earth, it is thinner and colder. So one possible way to kickstart terraforming is to pump enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere to thicken it and encourage global warming... so our nemesis here becomes our saviour there... I like that irony.

edit to add:

No, I think we shouldn't terraform Mars, even if that was technologically possible. That's just another way to run away from problem. I think we should keep our Earth clean and stay here.

I suppose that logic could have applied to discovery of the New World and stuff. Why go there? because we can, because there are resources we can live off, so we can expand like the parasitic leech species that we are! hazzah for us!

 

[RisingFury]

Well I couldn't tell you the composition of the mars atmosphere off the top of my head, but I do know that, compared to earth, it is thinner and colder. So one possible way to kickstart terraforming is to pump enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere to thicken it and encourage global warming... so our nemesis here becomes our saviour there... I like that irony.

The easiest way to do that would probably be to nuke the ice caps so a lot of the CO2 and water ice melt and thicken the atmosphere.

But still, you're lacking *a lot* of nitrogen. Keep in mind that Earth's atmosphere is only ~21% O2... mostly it's nitrogen. Where do you get such huge quantities of nitrogen on Mars?

Humans die from too much oxygen, just the same as having too little of it. And just for the record, no you cannot use CO2 to bring down the ratio of Oxygen in the atmosphere. CO2 is... well, kinda toxic.

Why go there? because we can, because there are resources we can live off, so we can expand like the parasitic leech species that we are! hazzah for us!

If we could go to Mars, we would have been there by now.

What resources? Just because we found water doesn't mean we can just instantly turn the planet into something that's gonna support human life.
Not to mention that most of that water would probably be used to thicken the atmosphere to the extent where humans can survive.

If you wanna have people there, you've got to have plants. What exactly is gonna grow on Mars?



Mars would be able to support a small population - a scientific outpost, relying on machines to make air, water, pressure, handle waste,... but that sort of life just isn't feasible for large populations.

 

[thomasantony]

The easiest way to do that would probably be to nuke the ice caps so a lot of the CO2 and water ice melt and thicken the atmosphere.

But still, you're lacking *a lot* of nitrogen. Keep in mind that Earth's atmosphere is only ~21% O2... mostly it's nitrogen. Where do you get such huge quantities of nitrogen on Mars?

Humans die from too much oxygen, just the same as having too little of it. And just for the record, no you cannot use CO2 to bring down the ratio of Oxygen in the atmosphere. CO2 is... well, kinda toxic.




If we could go to Mars, we would have been there by now.

What resources? Just because we found water doesn't mean we can just instantly turn the planet into something that's gonna support human life.
Not to mention that most of that water would probably be used to thicken the atmosphere to the extent where humans can survive.

If you wanna have people there, you've got to have plants. What exactly is gonna grow on Mars?



Mars would be able to support a small population - a scientific outpost, relying on machines to make air, water, pressure, handle waste,... but that sort of life just isn't feasible for large populations.

Well, you are not accounting for future growth in technology. CO2 is toxic .. for US. You supply some oxygen and enough nutrients + temperature conditions+water, plants would thrive there. And you don't need to to use all that water to thicken the atmosphere. There is a lot of CO2 ice on the martian poles to do that. True, it will be a CO2 atmosphere. But over time ( much more than human lifespans of course), it can be converted into more O2 using plants or maybe new photosynthesis-like tech.

 

[RisingFury]

Well, you are not accounting for future growth in technology. CO2 is toxic .. for US. You supply some oxygen and enough nutrients + temperature conditions+water, plants would thrive there. And you don't need to to use all that water to thicken the atmosphere. There is a lot of CO2 ice on the martian poles to do that. True, it will be a CO2 atmosphere. But over time ( much more than human lifespans of course), it can be converted into more O2 using plants or maybe new photosynthesis-like tech.

Then you end up with an atmosphere with 23% O2 and 75% CO2 and a few other gasses. Good luck living in that.

The other thing would be that... if it does take more than one human life span to terraform a planet, that means you're throwing away generations worth of resources that could help people live right here, on Earth.

 

[wehaveaproblem]

Then you end up with an atmosphere with 23% O2 and 75% CO2 and a few other gasses. Good luck living in that.

The other thing would be that... if it does take more than one human life span to terraform a planet, that means you're throwing away generations worth of resources that could help people live right here, on Earth.

Yes but now the time frame we are looking at is longer. So yes, one generation suffers, but many more subsequent generations can grow and thrive as a result. Whether the human mind set can change to think that long term is another question. Interestingly though, I think we would see a very different attitude and approach to such things if humans lived for twice as long as they do now.

As to resources, remember that real estate is a resource, an expanding species needs space. Plus it's a planet, it will be stuffed with resources of one kind or another. How we use and farm them is a whole different debate. I'm assuming that by the time the tech develops to allow us to do much grander projects, so will the tech to use different resources in different ways. Maybe Mars will be the home to Unobtanium... But if don't decide to go, we will never know.

Although your nitrogen argument is a quandry I don't have the knowledge to tackle.

 

[JamesG]

You can't terraform Mars. Even if you could heat it up the planet can't retain enough of an atmosphere to make it worth while. Then there is the problem of no magnetic field to protect against radiation.

The only real way to make it habitable would be to crash Ceres and most of the rest of the asteroid belt object into it to get the planet to within 3/4 of Earth's mass. But that is a bit of a long term project and a little beyond our capabilities right now.

Short term, the best we can do is roof over craters or some of the low-laying equatorial canyons like Valles Marineris to produce pressurized environments.

 

[Kyle]

I think we should. Earth is rapidly becoming overpopulated, and I think either Terraform Mars or building large city's on the moon, the dwarf Planet Ceres and perhaps even other plac

 

[Master of Blades]

I say no... We've already ruined one planet, why another one?

 

[Moonwalker]

The theoritical megalomaniac ability of terraforming Mars, to escape from our theoretical future inhabitable Earth, is a contradiction in terms.

If we would be that much powerful to terraform Mars, we would not need to do it. Because we would be powerful enough to save our own planet, or even change the Earth's orbit in case of a potential collision with another heavenly body.

If we don't learn to live here, we don't learn it anywhere else. Also, my personal conclusion is, that anyway terraforming Mars is not possible by no means. It's conditions do not even equal the conditions on top of Mount Everest, not even equal our Antarctica. Temperatures on Mars partly change by about 100°C within just one day.

We will die anyway. Also on Mars. Nothing lasts forever, less than ever we insignificant creatures within this solar system. Let's stick with our blue pretty planet. We only have this one, which by the way did not get ruined, nor is it going to be overpopulated. The population increases less than expected earlier, while this is going to turn into a decrease past 2050, in case the birthrate per women should be around 1,85 as predicted by the UNO. Also, overpopulation is not a global problem. It takes place in developing countries basically.

 

[RichWall]

Let's do it for fun. Beats shooting each other or listening to Al Gore.

If we have to have a Carbon Tax, Let it pay for this.

Lots of CO2 to complain about.