Should Mars be terraformed?

[DocM]

With Elon Musk hell-bent on putting humans on Mars with or without NASA, and NASA itself investing in the Space Launch System which has no other purpose than deep space missions, the subject is now being seriously broached in the space community. It IS technically possible.

Link....

Should We Terraform Mars?

As we continue to explore farther out into our solar system and beyond, the question of habitation or colonization inevitably comes up. Manned bases on the Moon or Mars for example, have long been a dream of many. There is a natural desire to explore as far as we can go, and also to extend humanity?s presence on a permanent or at least semi-permanent basis. In order to do this, however, it is necessary to adapt to different extreme environments. On the Moon for example, a colony must be self-sustaining and protect its inhabitants from the airless, harsh environment outside.

Mars, though, is different. While future bases could adapt to the Martian environment as well, there is also the possibility of modifying the surrounding environment instead of just co-existing with it. This is the process of terraforming ? essentially trying to tinker with Mars? atmosphere and environment to make it more Earth-like. Although still a long ways off technologically, terraforming the Red Planet is seen as a future possibility. Perhaps the bigger question is, should we?

One of the main issues is whether Mars has any indigenous life or not ? how does this affect the question of colonization or terraforming?

If Mars does have any kind of biosphere, it should be preserved as much as possible. We still don?t know yet if any such biosphere exists, but the possibility, which has only increased based on recent discoveries, must be taken into account.

>

What if Mars is lifeless? Even if no life otherwise exists there, that pristine and unique alien environment, so far barely scratched by humans, needs to be preserved as is as much as possible. We?ve already done too much damage here on our own planet.

>

There is also the more current but related problem of contamination. There has been a long-standing protocol, via the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to have all spacecraft going to the Moon or Mars sterilized as much as possible. If bacteria from Earth made it to the Martian surface and survived, it would complicate the search for life there; if a lander or rover was to later identify living organisms in the soil, it might be difficult to determine whether they were just contamination or true native life forms.

>

See also this excellent paper by astrobiologist Chris McKay. Some different views from this article on whether Mars should be protected and preserved at all costs or altered to help life to flourish there, but is a good presentation of the current ideas being put on the table. From the summary:

?Planetary ecosynthesis on Mars is being seriously discussed within the field of planetary science. It appears that restoring a thick atmosphere on Mars and the recreation of an environment habitable to many forms of life is possible. It is important now to consider if it ?should? be done. To do this takes us into new and interesting territory in environmental ethics but both utilitarian and intrinsic worth arguments support the notion of planetary ecosynthesis. Strict preservationism arguments do not. It is important to have the long-term view of life on Mars and the possibilities of planetary ecosynthesis. This affects how we explore Mars now. Mars may well be our first step out into the biological universe, it is a step we should take carefully.?

[+primortal Subscriber²]

Let's fix this planet first before we destroy another one.

The money that would be spent on achieving this could get rid of poverty, famine, homeless, etc.

[_neutrino Veteran]

as it is nearly impossible to know what our effects on the structure of the planet would be I would vote for No however, in the long run (not to mention it would take thousands of years) I would love to see the outcome of terraformation.

[Phouchg]

Yes. By the people of B Ark :p

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Total Recall anyone?

[threetonesun]

Sure. Mostly because no matter what I say, it will never happen in my life time. :laugh:

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I do not think Mars cares one way or the other. Just like the earth doesn't care...just us and other living beings we harm.

[~Johnny]

I don't see why not if they don't find any existing life eco-system. It's a big rock. We could do with another big rock at some point, our planet isn't going to sustain our population forever. I'm assuming this is a long term view of the future, and certainly I'd see this as no big problem in 100-200 years to have somewhere else ready for population and advancement.

Of course, a city like Rapture would be great too :p

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

I don't think terraforming is realistic. It sounds good, but it's probably impossible. Or if possible, it would take millions of years. :p

[DocM]

as it is nearly impossible to know what our effects on the structure of the planet would be I would vote for No however, in the long run (not to mention it would take thousands of years) I would love to see the outcome of terraformation.

I don't think terraforming is realistic. It sounds good, but it's probably impossible.

Not necessarily so. From NASA Ames astrobiologist Chris McKay's paper - it's not just theoretically possible but probably doable if we're committed to it.

http://esseacourses....8ReviewAAAS.pdf

From Table 3 we can see that if the sunlight incident on Mars could be utilized with 100% efficiency it would take only ~10 years to warm Mars and restore the thick CO2 atmosphere. Clearly 100% efficiency is an overestimate but atmospheric supergreenhouse gases, as discussed in the next section, can effectively alter the energy balance of a planet and efficiencies of 10% are plausible. Thus, the timescale for warming Mars is ~100 years.

>

>

10. Summary

Planetary ecosynthesis on Mars is being seriously discussed within the field of planetary science. It appears that restoring a thick atmosphere on Mars and the recreation of an environment habitable to many forms of life is possible. It is important now to consider if it ?should? be done.

During that ~100 years a smaller population of technical people and scientists could be supported in habitats to oversee the operation until the atmosphere is ready.

[MidnightDevil]

Let's fix this planet first before we destroy another one.

The money that would be spent on achieving this could get rid of poverty, famine, homeless, etc.

+1

[DocM]

That's the zero-sum argument based on the incorrect notion of a fixed size economic pie. Have you considered the high end jobs created from a massive project like this, and the spinoff jobs from the monies they spend and products they buy? The taxes all those people and their employers pay?

[Growled Member]

I hope we get to that point one day. We've got to get there first before we start asking such questions.

[neufuse Veteran]

Let's fix this planet first before we destroy another one.

The money that would be spent on achieving this could get rid of poverty, famine, homeless, etc.

the fact is you almost can never get rid of those things, no mater how much you spend there will always be a region that is poorer and less able to cope with climate, conditions, and just other factors... we could throw all our money at places like africa and never see a change, due to how the region just works

[morphen]

IF it ever becomes possible, sure,why not.

[Klownicle]

Its sad to think that I or anyone (most likly) will not be around when we colonize another planet. Do I think we as a populace will ever get by our one-sighted mind? Not at all. I for see us eventually screwing this planet and ourselves over and/or getting snuffed out before we even grow a sack and do something.

I'd love to experience a space race. I wasn't around/or remember the moon landing, but for some reason in our current time-frame I just can't imagine this happening again.

By all means, if my voice has power. I say it needs to be done.

[thommcg]

The demand for beach-front resorts and golf courses will drive Mars being terra-formed...

[neoadorable]

personally i'm a red - reference to Kim S Robinson's Mars trilogy. I'd rather heavily colonize and develop Mars without the cost and hardship of terraforming. by the time Mars is terraformed to anywhere near Earth conditions, we will have the tech to viably go to other star systems and look for more shake and bake planets where terraforming won't be a problem. something like Pandora from Avatar, just filter out the excess CO2 and you're good. so yes, Mars all the way, but terraforming i think is kinda redundant. when the time comes and we have enough resources to do so, then yeah. but until then, focus on bringing people there, developing infrastructure, and getting resources back to Earth.

[coth]

Even if you can change the atmosphere you still can't be on Mars and Venus without space suit, because both Mars and Venus have no magnetosphere.

[Crisp]

I thought the biggest problem with moving to Mars was the Gravity?

[Radium]

What about "terraforming" our own vast deserts?! The deserts on earth spread due to nothing keeping the sand to the ground.

I would be more interesting in desalination plants on the west coast of Africa which create water for forests and people. Let's turn our deserts into big projects, employ people who have nowhere to go and pay them to form the forests. As the deserts spread the governments selling useless land, the nomads have nowhere to go. This is a big problem in the arid parts of Africa and the Gobi desert. Turn those parts into living forests to counter the chopping down the rain forests. We need all types of forests to make the climate stable. If we keep doing what we're doing then there will be no tropical forests left.

Mars is much more dead than it looks, the inner core is weak. I don't think that Mars will ever be able to hold onto an atmosphere, you need a big protective magnetic field for that or it will just blow away. The Earth is much stronger than Mars.

[Japlabot]

We need to start with biopheres and getting a human there before we start inking about terraforming, which if unsuccessful (given human history of screwing up its own habitat, is likely) would evaporate the limited amount of frozen water into the vacuum of space, making it harder to live for many generations after. Mars might not even be close enough to the Sun to support an atmosphere.

At least try colonizing the moon first. It would be far more efficient to launch long haul flights from a moon base than earth because of less gravity, and space stations have NO Gravity to use as an anchor for a launch.

[Soulsiphon]

Let's fix this planet first before we destroy another one.

The money that would be spent on achieving this could get rid of poverty, famine, homeless, etc.

+1x10^9999

Humans will inhabit the oceans first. Much easier to move the overflow population from our landmasses on Earth into the ocean that covers 70% of the earth before we even entertain the idea of off-world colonization.

I thought the biggest problem with moving to Mars was the Gravity?

The skiing on red sand is kinda weird too ;)

[TrevorLahey]

Let's fix this planet first before we destroy another one.

The money that would be spent on achieving this could get rid of poverty, famine, homeless, etc.

If people can't help themselves, there is no hope for them. (and I'm not talking about the people who are physically, or mentally unable to help themselves.) Our money is better spent exploring... We don't know what we can find yet.... We can find something that can fix all of our problems.

[Snake89]

We need to start with biopheres and getting a human there before we start inking about terraforming, which if unsuccessful (given human history of screwing up its own habitat, is likely) would evaporate the limited amount of frozen water into the vacuum of space, making it harder to live for many generations after. Mars might not even be close enough to the Sun to support an atmosphere.

At least try colonizing the moon first. It would be far more efficient to launch long haul flights from a moon base than earth because of less gravity, and space stations have NO Gravity to use as an anchor for a launch.

NASA was planning on heading back to the moon first before going to mars, until obama killed the project off.