Recommended Posts

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.?

post-347280-0-01595200-1325276394.jpg

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1048285-should-mars-be-terraformed/
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7

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 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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!