Starship Asterisk*

My question is , understanding the current predominance of carbon dioxide plus smaller elements of our "Earth" atmosphere plus the assumption that a colony of humans becomes established (albeit in a dome or something) can we proceed to plant things there and use the existing Mars atmosphere carrying it forward to the point that plants grow and produce more usable oxygen?
My reason fro raising this item is that as a new member of an Old Fatrs Science group we were challenged to provide a subject for discussion.

The best (fictional) answer I've seen for this is the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson: Red Mars, Blue Mars, and Green Mars. He had to speed up the process by a factor of 10 (maybe even 100) to get the story to work, but nothing there seems implausible -- except the political will to do it, of course.

Rob

I thought google was working on it. They have boatloads of money, so there's a chance they can make it reality

I applied, but they said I was not good material for a Martian colonist because I was distressingly normal. How embarassing is that!?

Rob

Build a good pub/bar, you always get a brilliant atmosphere in a good pub/bar . if that fails, plants are good!

I predict (and will make it happen if I can) that the first pub on Mars will be called Bar Soom.

Rob

Remember the movie where they did this with a form of moss? It was alright I suppose, but I'm no movie critic. Maybe theres a mineshaft somewhere that arnold schwarzeneger needs to visit to put his big hand into a device which replenishes the mars atmosphere. Plants would work, it would take time, and at the rate of global warming, they really need to act now!

Well, I think the main problem is the fact that Mars has no magnetic field. This means that even as you attempt to thicken the atmosphere it will be ionized and stripped away by solar radiation.

Orca wrote:Well, I think the main problem is the fact that Mars has no magnetic field. This means that even as you attempt to thicken the atmosphere it will be ionized and stripped away by solar radiation.

That's not a serious problem. The rate of atmospheric loss is measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So if you have a system of active terraforming, keeping up shouldn't be a problem over any sort of time span humans are likely to care about.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Orca wrote:Well, I think the main problem is the fact that Mars has no magnetic field. This means that even as you attempt to thicken the atmosphere it will be ionized and stripped away by solar radiation.

That's not a serious problem. The rate of atmospheric loss is measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So if you have a system of active terraforming, keeping up shouldn't be a problem over any sort of time span humans are likely to care about.

Perhaps. But it means you'd need to introduce a large amount of material (aka gas) in a short amount of time. You'd also have to have mechanical methods to maintain the atmosphere, unless you could find some sort of algae or other plant that is resistant to solar radiation.

It all seems kind of ridiculous to me, when you think of the problems that must be overcome and the resources that would be required for success.

Orca wrote:Perhaps. But it means you'd need to introduce a large amount of material (aka gas) in a short amount of time. You'd also have to have mechanical methods to maintain the atmosphere, unless you could find some sort of algae or other plant that is resistant to solar radiation.

You'd have to do that anyway. Nobody is likely to be interested in terraforming Mars if they can't do it in decades or maybe a few centuries. That's such a tiny fraction of the atmospheric half-life that loss of gases to space can be ignored completely. If you can restore the atmosphere in a century, you can keep it intact pretty much forever.

It all seems kind of ridiculous to me, when you think of the problems that must be overcome and the resources that would be required for success.

Well, that's a different issue than the question of what's technically possible. You're certainly right that by any reasonable standards we can imagine today, terraforming Mars makes no sense. Maybe that will be different in a few centuries; I don't know.

so let me get this right, terra forming is the reintroduction of plants on mars in order to reinvigorate mars atmosphere? surely we could create enormous domes all across mars (i.e. green houses) and start planting inside these domes. Instead of letting the plants loose to the atmosphere we let the atmosphere loose on the plants on a weekly basis. We could release the gases built up inside the greenhouse through vents. say for example you replant an area of about a mile squared at 15 points across the planet underneath these domes then lifted the lid and walked away, what would happen?

wonderboy wrote:so let me get this right, terra forming is the reintroduction of plants on mars in order to reinvigorate mars atmosphere?

Terraforming simply means modifying a planet's environment so that it becomes compatible with human life- made approximately Earth-like. It doesn't need to involve plants, although hypothetical schemes often do.

Any terraforming project amounts to an engineering problem of vast scale. Consider that it's taken the output of several billion people a few hundred years to start showing up as environmental change here on Earth. Then think about what a few hundred (or even thousand) people are likely to be able to put in place on an entire planet in a short time. The effort boggles belief, without some pretty massive advances in our technology.

But it has to start somewhere right? so why not now? I know money is tight, but the peaceful side of the world should get up there and stake a claim on the planet which is likely to become our home in an astronomical blink of an eye.

wonderboy wrote:I know money is tight, but the peaceful side of the world...

The what? You are apparently living on a different world than I am!

Just me bein stupid I think. I posted that at the end of a 12 hour shift. 9am-9pm . All I'm saying is that for changes to happen, they have to be commenced at some point. Why not now? We have to be ambitious and bold regarding space exploration. Obviously it would help if we got a few missions to mars and back under our belts. I see how it would be difficult, but it technically could be started (even thought the process would take yeeeears to finish).

wonderboy wrote:All I'm saying is that for changes to happen, they have to be commenced at some point. Why not now? We have to be ambitious and bold regarding space exploration. Obviously it would help if we got a few missions to mars and back under our belts. I see how it would be difficult, but it technically could be started (even thought the process would take yeeeears to finish).

Here's the thing. We're trashing our own planet- in a sense, we are unterraforming it. Although the basic processes behind this are understood, much detail is not. And no society currently has the political will to deal with the problem. Yet this problem is trivially simple compared with the task of deliberately creating an entirely new atmosphere and ecosystem.

When we understand our own planet well enough to just keep it stable, I'll believe we might consider looking elsewhere. But that's not likely to happen for a very long time. Indeed, it seems quite possible that our inaction here will knock us down to a technological level where we won't even have the capability of leaving the planet, let alone modifying another.

I agree with that. Its quite worrying how complacent the idiots in charge are. Change is needed and hopefully this is realised before its too late.

Chris Peterson wrote:Here's the thing. We're trashing our own planet- in a sense, we are unterraforming it. Although the basic processes behind this are understood, much detail is not. And no society currently has the political will to deal with the problem. Yet this problem is trivially simple compared with the task of deliberately creating an entirely new atmosphere and ecosystem.

When we understand our own planet well enough to just keep it stable, I'll believe we might consider looking elsewhere. But that's not likely to happen for a very long time. Indeed, it seems quite possible that our inaction here will knock us down to a technological level where we won't even have the capability of leaving the planet, let alone modifying another.

What scares me is all the talk about geo-engineering or hacking the Earth. We don't understand what's happening with the environment today. How can we even pretend to know the long term effects of some of these schemes. Dumping chemicals into the ocean to create algae blooms (to reduce atmospheric carbon), launching dust into the stratosphere to block sun light (cooling the planet), injecting bubbles into the ocean to increase albedo (cooling the oceans). Algae blooms could release toxic chemicals into the ocean killing off large populations of sea life. Miscalculation of dust levels in the stratosphere could launch us into the next Ice Age. Cooling parts of the ocean could seriously affect the ocean convection currents with unknown disastrous results. In trying to fix things, we could end up making things worse. I agree we need to do something, but let's make sure we know what we are doing. The physicians creed comes to mind, "First, do no harm."

Are they actually doing that? firing dust into the atmosphere? say for example they build up a good amount of dust in the atmosphere and cool the planet sufficiently, what if theres a few big eruptions adding to this dust. theres no way of calculating the contributory factors which could make something like that go wrong. If they are actually doing this they should stop immediately. pumping dust into the atmosphere has to be the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard.

It is happening all over China, Dust is being pumped into the atmosphere daily,In the form os particulate soot.
All the Brown sludge in the image is covering the metropolitan areas with metropolution. This is what they tried to clean up in Bei jing in 2008. They even shut down the factories for a couple of weeks to try to clear the air.

wonderboy wrote:Are they actually doing that? firing dust into the atmosphere? say for example they build up a good amount of dust in the atmosphere and cool the planet sufficiently, what if theres a few big eruptions adding to this dust. theres no way of calculating the contributory factors which could make something like that go wrong. If they are actually doing this they should stop immediately. pumping dust into the atmosphere has to be the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard.

There are no large scale geoengineering projects in place. There are some research projects studying such things, however. Many climate scientists- a majority I think- believe that the current inaction is likely to get us into a situation where we have to risk active geoengineering, although it is a dangerous last resort. Potential projects broadly fall into two categories- long term active scrubbing of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and short term modification of insolation- mainly by altering atmospheric aerosols and dust.

My point here isn't to get into a discussion of what, when, and how we should be controlling our own environment, but simply to point out how absurd the idea of terraforming another planet actually is given how little we seem to understand our own.

Chris Peterson wrote:My point here isn't to get into a discussion of what, when, and how we should be controlling our own environment, but simply to point out how absurd the idea of terraforming another planet actually is given how little we seem to understand our own.

I take your point about how little we know about planet Earth. But if we ever decide, for whatever reason, to terraform Mars it may turn out to be a relatively simple thing, at least at first. We would need to increase the surface temperature, add oxygen and add water -- all three things being done simultaneously. The process may best be started somewhat violently, by "bombing" the planet with icy asteroids while heating it with orbital mirrors. Obviously we'd have to have the technology to accurately push large objects around in space as well as get large numbers of humans to Mars -- otherwise there's no point to the project.

IF we get ourselves under control here at home, and IF we get into and stay in space in a big way, and IF we have both the need and the political will as a species (countries need not apply), THEN we may undertake this sort of thing. But how long it will be before all that comes to pass is anybody's guess. My guess, barring something amazing happening in our technology, is that we'll start talking about terraforming Mars seriously about 300 to 500 years from now.

Rob

This just in, scientists have found out how to solve the problem with the ozone. apparently if you get rid of all the ozone, the hole in the ozone layer will cease to exist, problem solved.

A little bit exaggerated, but this must be something close to the absurdity that goes through scientists minds if they are thinking of pumping dust into the atmosphere to cool it down.

But chris is right, how can we fix another planet when we really need to look at fixing our own?