>>6621147 Yes, terraforming of Mars is inevitable. The Moon will have several hundred million people living on it before this century is over. Once mankind starts expanding into the solar system the severe underpopulation problem of the species will be solved.
Maybe, but why colonise a planet and deal with the gravity well when you want to transfer resources on/off of it when you could live in space and mine asteroids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder)?
Colonizing Mars before we're certain it doesn't contain any extra-terrestrial microbial life and contaminating it with our Earth germs is not really a good idea no matter how much Neil Tyson bangs on about it.
The moon is a completely dead world and a hell of a lot closer. Sure, lack of an atmosphere is a problem, but arguably no weather is better than the bullshit weather on Mars.
>>6621267 They are seriously looking into it as an option, some of the air will be lost through fissures but because the pressure difference on Mars is only as few PSI they don't think it'll be a major issue.
It's my understanding that the magnetosphere is responsible for deflecting the solar wind (as well as radiation) and preventing it from blowing off the majority of atmosphere. Even if terraforming were possible it wouldn't last indefinitely.
>>6621393 Radiation sucks for the guys inside usually, buildings don't really care though.
Radiation shielding is a concern when you try to do the easiest type of colonization (inflatable habitats on the surface) when you have no magnetic field or atmosphere. Once you build those then radiation stops being an issue, but until then it would be cheaper to just construct underground as the shielding material comes with the location.
I remember a thread on /sci/ not long ago about terraforming of Mars. Some idiot insisted that the first step should be the development of a wormhole drive. So that we can transport asteroids to Mars in order to increase its mass, so the atmosphere doesn't escape. It went downhill from there.
yeah, it'll just take a while. it'll be cool to see globalization... sort of go away, while still being a modern society. the time of tribes developing in isolation for thousands of years is gone now. but with space travel, it may yet be possible once again.
What if we diverted a few massive and gaseous asteroids and bombarded the planet? You would seed some gas into the atmosphere and if you got a dense and metallic object you could vaporize the poles. If you got something the size of a small moon you could puncture the crust and get some geothermal activity again.
This of course if we had ways to manipulate moon sized objects. And thousands of years.
>>6621680 The solution for global warming would actually be building as many nuclear power plants as possible and run everything on electricity instead of fossil fuel. Also stop or slow down deforestation, reduce the demand for paper drastically. More plants means less CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>6621303 Terraforming to make it viable for at least plant life would increase its economic value drastically. The atmosphere doesn't have to be much thinker than it already is, and plant life would accelerate the thickening process themselves too.
>>6621706 trees are a renewable resource. so long as you replant the forests (which you almost always do in the US and Canada) using more paper *increases* the amount of forested area for the same reason that buying a lot of iphones causes there to be more iphones in the world. this principle is actually fairly well-known in economics and has a number of applications, although the issue with trees does get complicated since regulations on logging vary.
>>6621706 >Terraforming to make it viable for at least plant life would increase its economic value drastically. Debatable. On the one hand, you gain plants to harvest. On the other, you lose a sterile, reducing environment to work in.
I think you're underestimating the value of a very dry and practically oxygen-free atmosphere for industrial purposes.
>>6621871 In many ways, Mars is the easiest extraterrestrial destination with good supplies of raw materials.
Unlike low Earth orbit, there is plentiful matter there. Unlike the moon or any asteroid or comet, it has enough atmosphere for aerobraking. Unlike the moon it has a lot more availability of things like carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen, and a day of reasonable length so most of the surface is accessible at any given time to solar-powered systems with only short-term energy storage. Furthermore, the history of liquid water likely means that ores have been concentrated by chemical processes similar to those which occur on Earth.
It may make more sense to live there in sealed habitats, and keep the environment as it is for industrial purposes.
>>6622927 and massive amounts of cooling and some way to shield the surface from all that radiation. We'd basically need a massive lead or some other heavy metal bowl to put over the half the planet that is facing the sun to keep everything from dieing.
>>6622968 >next to no ISRU Atmospheric water and oxygen for starters. You'll have to dig it out of the ground on Mars or bring it with you.
>massive gravity Necessary at this point for human survival long term. There won't be a second generation of colonists on Mars that could ever visit Earth, assuming they survive that long before the colony fails live on TV.
>>6622990 >water >Venus You can get oxygen there just fine, but where are you going to get your hydrogen from? Also, the only things we know the effects of are living in 1g, which is fine, and living in 0g, which suck without exercising, and there are some things about living in 0g that we still don't know about For all we know, someone could be born and raised on the Moon and after exercising for a month and spending another month on Earth they'll be able to walk around here just fine What we really need is an orbital centrifuge, as another module for the ISS or as a completely different station, so we know how living in varying levels of gravity will affect the human body
>>6623013 Venus would be the safest bet for having enough gravity, since it has 0.9g, but if Mars would still be a better candidate for colonization, if it has enough gravity, which is still unknown As for the sulfuric acid, that would work, if there were enough of it in Venus' atmosphere, but I can't seem to find a site that tells me the concentration of sulfuric acid in Venus' atmosphere, though the altitude where a floating Venus colony would be at is about where the sulfuric acid clouds would be
Regardless, the whole process would still be easier on Mars, where you can just sit your ass next to a glacier and melt the ice, and getting into orbit is easier there
>>6623027 Getting into orbit is something you only need to do if you need to GTFO, which really you would need to do on Mars. That's not an issue on Venus.
It's not going to be a matter of melting ice, it is going to be heavy mining equipment to dig up the shit that the water is bound up into and then processing it into something usable. Whereas Venus has all the necessary gasses already in liquid/gas form.
Can anyone explain to me why cave-world colony on Mars is somehow cooler than airship-world on Venus?
>>6623034 Mars colony would be more feasibly than a Venus colony, albeit a bit less cool
Though now that you bring these things up, I'm not so sure of that myself I can't really think of any situations that'd leave yourself fucked on Venus that you could potentially escape from if you were on Mars by going into orbit
Actually, helium's not hard to come by on Venus either.
At 12 ppm, it might not seem a lot more common than Earth's 5 ppm, but remember that Venus's atmosphere is a lot thicker, and mostly CO2.
Unlike Earth's nitrogen/oxygen/argon atmosphere, CO2 is relatively easy to compress into a liquid and separate from the other gases. After you separate out the CO2, the other gasses are about 30 times more concentrated. So after this initial step, now we're talking about ~3600 ppm of helium, or 0.3-0.4%.
Venus could be a good place to get a LOT of helium. Probably the best place in the inner solar system to harvest noble gases.
If you're having a large scale exodus off of Earth it will always better to just stay in space. No sense in putting yourself down another gravity well. But if you need to be on a planet, my vote's for Venus.
Rocket fuel's not an issue. If you're already in space, you'll just set up an orbital ring and drop cables down to the planet. You might as well get any resources for stuff from asteroids, as a lack of any serious surface geology on both planets means you'll probably have a hard time fishing up anything more interesting than basalt. There's also fuck all energy out by Mars, a key resource people seem to ignore.
>>6623149 >fuck all energy out by Mars Solar intensity isn't much lower at Mars. It's about half what we get on Earth. That's pretty minor. And I haven't heard any reason why uranium, thorium, deuterium, or lithium would be particularly hard to come by on Mars.
>>6623159 Even lower gravity than Mars, real far off, stuck in Jupiter's gravity well, has a higher chance of having indigenous life that we might disturb with terrestrial microorganisms than Mars does, real far off
>>6623172 That is true. But I still think a water-covered body like Europa would be a better basis for a civilization than a desolate desert like Mars. If there is no life on Europa beneath the ice, we can possibly cultivate it or bring a fauna from Earth. Life on Earth is already water based.
I grant you your objections though. We're definitely not there yet.
Mars has like 1/100:th of earth's atmospheric density, as i understand it, mostly because of the complete lack of magnetosphere.
I see people talking a lot about the prospect of magically terraforming an entire planet, but even if you could create the atmosphere, what's to prevent the solar winds from just blowing it off into space again? Satellites? Or just pumping out enough gases to cancel the effect? At what point would that just be too costly to even consider?
There's also the problem that mars is on the edge of some estimates of the goldilock zone, and so far it's not been confirmed with absolute certainty that water ever existed there in liquid form.
So basically: 1. Can we create an atmosphere? 2. Can we maintain the atmosphere against the solar wind, with no protective magnetosphere? 3. If we can do 1 and 2, is mars close enough to the sun to produce the required greenhouse effect and boost the temperature into habitable zones? 4. Can we artificially maintain the precise balance in the atmosphere, considering we're doing such a splendid job with our own that actually takes some serious EFFORT to fuck up in the first place?
>>6623208 1. Yes, by melting some frozen CO2 on the ice caps, which'll melt more frozen CO2 and water ice via greenhouse, after which we can introduce terrestrial plants to create oxygen 2. No, but by the time any significant amount of air is gone we'll probably have fucked off to another star system by then 3. Maybe 4. No, terrestrial organisms can maintain it for us, as they already do here on Earth, which we're not really fucking up to any considerable degree
Also, small amounts of water flows on Mars during the martian summer in the present day, and there's fucktons of geological evidence for even more water flowing in the past, so it's probably a safe bet that it did happen
There will be a major catastrophe. Ocean acidification will cause a catastrophic collapse in the marine ecosystem in 2050 and society as we know it will more or less collapse when oil becomes prohibitively expensive around the same time.
Lol if you think we'll ever be a space faring species.
>>6623231 Venus already has a magnetosphere and atmosphere largely composed of CO2 anyway, no prospecting/digging/melting necessary. It also has enough hydrogen bound to other gasses to make more water than we could ever use.
Venus is a lot better candidate for terraforming because it would be a matter of applying geoengineering tech there that could also be used to save Earth rather than just throwing mega tons of material at a planet that can't sustain its own magnetosphere, like Mars.
>>6623330 No matter how much of Venus' CO2 you turn into O2, it's still going to have roughly 92 times the atmospheric pressure of Earth With Mars it already has frozen CO2 to bulk up the atmosphere, and I don't think freezing Venus' CO2 is really that viable, unless you plan on shipping all the dry ice somewhere else
>>6623338 Only at the surface is pressure an issue and even then there's supercritical CO2 on the surface, which is a useful industrial solvent.
Earth sea level pressure/earth normal temperature is 55km up where our air is a lifting gas sufficient to keep large structures afloat and the temperature is relatively comfortable.
Binding gasses into solids is a fuckton easier than trying to find them, mine them, and extract them from Martian soil. Far less equipment and effort is involved in simply removing it from the atmosphere (which assists terraforming anyway).
The O2 could be profitably mined and sold to other habitats (or a ridiculous Mars colony lol). The Carbon could be used in any number of industrial processes, locally fabricated technology or building materials.
>>6623356 It is because simple economic action (removing CO2 from the atmosphere for profit/industry) causes terraforming. There's no profitable reason to terraform Mars and short of adding a magnetosphere it is a temporary effort anyway.
>>6623352 >The O2 could be profitably mined and sold to other habitats No, oxygen is ubiquitous. And for the amounts you're talking about shipping off-planet, it would make more sense to ship hydrogen to Venus, so it can have an ocean.
>>6623357 Once you remove the CO2, where does it go? Either it goes into a colony, where it is converted into O2, inhaled by the colonists, and breathed back out into CO2 again, and the process repeats CO2 is already a part of whatever life support systems are in place for any manned craft, I highly doubt interplanetary shipping will ever be necessary just to get some carbon dioxide, and even so, I doubt we'll ever remove enough of it from Venus' atmosphere to cause any measurable effect, much less terraform the thing
There are materials which can survive Venus's surface temperatures, pressures, and chemistry. It would be a job of engineering to do anything down there, but it's not in the realm of the impossible.
Another thing is that you could also englobe the entire planet in buoyant carbon structures, at the level where the atmosphere is Earth-pressure, and live on that surface, eventually making the atmosphere above Earth-like, sealing off the atmosphere below. That's sort-of terraforming, and it can be done in gradual steps. You could even move this surface to provide an Earth-like day-night cycle.
BTW, I'm not the guy who was saying Venus is better for terraforming than Mars, I'm just interested in this.
>>6623388 It'd still be more feasible to just build floating colonies than attempt to terraform Venus Venus' clouds actually circle the planet once every 4 days, which is long, but not nearly as long as Venus' surface does, so in that respect, unless you have a plan to make Venus spin faster, it'd be better to live in the clouds, anyway
Also, >englobe the entire planet Stopped reading there
>>6623397 Come on, when you're talking about terraforming, you're talking about a long-term plan.
There are a lot of things you can make from carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, with a little hydrogen from the ten trillion tons of water vapor in Venus's atmosphere, plus sulfur and small amounts of noble gasses, fluorine, and chlorine.
You can make structural material, solar collectors, semiconductors, etc. It's possible to build a floating solar-powered atmosphere-mining factory with living space which can eventually build an identical unit to itself, just from sunlight and air.
However slow the process of a single step of replication is, whether it takes a year or a generation, it can proceed exponentially and eventually englobe the planet in a relatively small number of doublings.
>>6623407 Well, now that you put it that way, it doesn't seem as unfeasible Question is, would such a likely carbon-based superstructure still hold up if the balloons that originally held it up were popped? If so, then it might not actually be out of the question to convert the remaining upper atmosphere into one more suitable for terrestrial life
>>6621189 Why is unification of humanity so integral to expanding into space? We weren't united when we began exploring the land around us, and then the seas around us, why would it be different for space? What's stopping states from expanding into space and then human civilization breaking off into factions?
>>6623498 >would such a likely carbon-based superstructure still hold up if the balloons that originally held it up were popped? Why would it need to? I see them as permanent features of the structure.
As you sealed off the globe and stripped the CO2 out of the air above it in favor of a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere, it would be less like balloons in air and more like boats on a sea. They'd only need to be well-sealed on the bottom.
Additionally, as you got close to englobement, you'd have a serious influence on the radiation balance. Under the balloon-factories (absorbing solar radiation above most of the atmosphere with its greenhouse effect), the air would cool, the sulfuric acid would condense to surface pools, and the environment would become correspondingly less hellish for mining and other industrial activities on the surface.
>>6623535 Though, in terms of the industrial stuff on the surface, that might be a bit difficult, what with the globe rotating many times faster than the surface, so you can't just let down something on a cable, mine shit, and haul it back up
>>6623539 Though that's another thing, how will this globe affect the wind speed? If it stops, you can't really just stick fans on it to keep the structure moving, since that'll just make the air move in the opposite direction
>>6623543 That'd probably be cool as hell >flying in a small cargo plane down in the thick air, the network of the globe hanging above you, casting hexagonal shadows onto the ground, faint sun in the sky
>>6623546 Now that is an interesting engineering challenge.
There's going to be friction losses, so if you want it to spin you have to make it so the heat from the sun hitting the day side sustains the wind to carry the thermal energy to the night side. How best to do that is an interesting question. The mechanism might turn out to be very simple (letting sunlight in at certain places), or very complicated.
On the other hand, it might make more sense to set the structure up so it's always oriented the same way to the sun. You wouldn't have a day-night cycle, but do you really want one, or do you prefer to just set your solar collectors to a fixed angle for optimal power generation?
>>6623574 Also, day/night is pretty necessary for almost all terrestrial life, and even if you wanted one side to be facing the sun 24/7, you'll still have to get it to spin so it keeps facing the sun throughout the year
>>6623590 The atmospheric composition would have to be controlled via said wildlife, since we're obviously not capable of converting an entire atmosphere on our own, so yes, wildlife would be necessary
>>6623604 >>We are talking about a world entirely covered by solar-collecting factory-habitats. >we're obviously not capable of converting an entire atmosphere on our own Um... have you been following this thread?
>>6623610 Okay, so you mean the whole atmosphere, including the part under the globe, not just an Earthlike fraction above it.
Why do that?
Anyway, Earth life couldn't do it. Earth life makes carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins from CO2. There's not nearly enough hydrogen on Venus to bond with all that carbon, and if there was, it would still leave ridiculous pressures at ground level.
If you wanted to truly terraform Venus, rather than pseudo-terraform with a global habitat, it would need to be done industrially.
>>6624383 >Mars is too small to hold an atmosphere. Oh no. it will lose its atmosphere over 2 million years time if we don't replenish it actively during that time. Clearly no terraforming civilization could maintain an atmosphere when it depletes on such fast timescales.
>>6624520 >replenishing the entire atmosphere takes you thousands if not millions of years What kind of amateur terraformer are you? If you can't fix the atmosphere of a harmless small world like mars in less than 10000 years your civilization sucks and will never amount to anything.
>>6624504 When given the option of using life sustaining gases inside a habitat or literally just expelled into space, one of those options is always going to be more appealing. Nobody is going to terraform Mars. Not ever.
>>6623616 Testing out massive geoengineering projects on Venus is fundamentally safer for humanity and Venus represents an "ideal" vision of runaway global warming on which to develop climate modification tools.
>>6624554 When given the option to live in a bunker that requires life support or under an open sky one of these options is always going to be more appealing. When mars have enough colonist, they'll start to terraform. >>6624593 >Then our past, current and future civilization sucks and will never amount to anything. With that defeatist attitude you'll certainly never amount to anything atleast.
>>6624646 >Mars can't be terraformed after the fact unless you're magically adding mass somehow without killing the colonists. Why do we need to add lots of mass? We need a chunk of atmosphere, but that can be generated from in-situ resources.
>>6624658 "Terra" isn't a new age nickname, it's a very old and accepted alternate name for Earth, just as "Luna" is for the Moon and "Sol" is for the Sun.
They're commonly used in discussing scenarios of the future where there are other worlds where people stand on and plant in the earth, orbited by other moons, in orbit around other suns.
>>6624664 >Okay, fine, while you're Earthforming Mars, you'll need to add a considerable amount of mass to bring it up to Earth normal gravity. Did you think "terraform" meant something else? It does mean something else. Nobody uses "terraform" to mean, "to turn into an exact duplicate of Earth, mass and all".
>>6624664 Terraforming is a valid term, just like how we say "lunar eclipse". But referring to earth as terra(or tellus, or gaia), or the moon as luna(or selune or whatever you hipster faggots say) means you declare yourself a hipster faggot who specializes in opinions and pseudoscience. Which is precisely what I expect from you and /sci/ in general.
>you'll need to add a considerable amount of mass to bring it up to Earth normal gravity No you don't, no you wont', no it's still terraforming.
>it will take you millions of years to provide a valid argument that supports your claim
>you'll still need a magnetosphere To enjoy the northern lights or use a compass. To go out, you can just open the door and go out, especially with a thick atmosphere which shield against high energy photons and particles. A magnetosphere will deflect some particles which is nice if you're sitting in a thin can with no shielding in a low orbit. But inside a thick atmosphere it's not necessary as a shield.
Do you have any furhter opinions or misconceptions that needs discrediting?
>>6624682 >accepted alternate name for Earth, just as "Luna" is for the Moon and "Sol" is for the Sun. Not If you're doing science, It's not standard nomenclature. If you're shitposting on 4chan or making ridiculous claims on your blog, sure, go ahead. I'll call you a faggot either way
>>6624664 >it will take you millions of years to produce an atmosphere around Mars of sufficient Earthformed density Total nonsense.
>you'll still need a magnetosphere to even go outside for any considerable amount of time Also false. It is the atmosphere, not the magnetic field, which provides our main protection from ionizing space radiation. And living on the current Mars surface without radiation protection would only result in a moderately higher rate of cancer and birth defects. These could dealt with by advances of medicine which are going to be developed for other reasons anyway.
>>6621189 >I highly doubt we would be a unified planet by the end of this century, which is essential for a stable pace expansion. Opposite is true. A unified earth will spend time and resources on earth. A fractured earth with repressed peoples will expand rapidly into space. America was founded by repressed religious people and expanded by same and people wanting a chance to express themselves and be free from the government they were under.
>>6624714 >So are you genetically altering everyone to be able to live and function in low g on a permanent multi-generational basis or just hoping evolution will do it for you? We don't know yet what the long-term health effects of moderately lowered gravity will be. At this point, we can be reasonably optimistic that Mars gravity will be sufficient to maintain good health without special intervention. We'll find out during exploration and colonization missions.
>>6624793 Mars has more gravity, but more importantly, more resources. The Moon's got metal oxides and a small (but useful) amount of water, and that's it. A lunar colony will always be dependent on external sources for other basic resources.
Mars comes with a CO2 atmosphere, a considerable amount of water, and there's reason to believe that it may have sizable nitrate deposits. That means that all the essentials for life support can be synthesized or grown on Mars with native resources.
>>6624808 Also, the Moon has a 30-Earth-day long day/night cycle. This is inconvenient for growing plants and means you need an enormous amount of solar capacity and power storage to keep the life-support on and the plants alive during the long, long lunar night.
Mars' day/night cycle, on the other hand, is 24 hours, 37 minutes. This is much more conducive to growing plants.
>>6624808 >The Moon's got metal oxides and a small (but useful) amount of water, and that's it. Not true at all. Carbon and nitrogen are also known to exist on the moon. It should be possible to extract pretty much every element from the moon, which has been bombarded with asteroids and comets.
>>6624818 >the Moon has a 30-Earth-day long day/night cycle. This is inconvenient for growing plants and means you need an enormous amount of solar capacity and power storage to keep the life-support on and the plants alive during the long, long lunar night. Plans for lunar colonization usually focus either on nuclear power or peaks of eternal light at the poles.
The key advantage of the moon is that we can travel to and from it at will, and the trip only takes a couple of days. Launch windows to Mars only occur every couple of years, and the trip takes months one-way. If something goes wrong with your moon colony at any time, you can hop in an escape capsule and go home. If something goes wrong on Mars between return launch windows, you fix it or die there.
Regardless of the attractions of Mars, the moon will likely be permanently occupied first. It may not appeal as living space, but it's attractive for industrial development.
>>6624856 >The key advantage of the moon is that we can travel to and from it at will, and the trip only takes a couple of days. Launch windows to Mars only occur every couple of years, and the trip takes months one-way. If something goes wrong with your moon colony at any time, you can hop in an escape capsule and go home. If something goes wrong on Mars between return launch windows, you fix it or die there.
>Regardless of the attractions of Mars, the moon will likely be permanently occupied first. It may not appeal as living space, but it's attractive for industrial development
>>6624860 As an addendum: The Moon pretty much has to be exploited before we can do anything with Mars besides another-Apollo-but-more-expensive. Mars gets vastly more practical to get to if you can refuel in Earth orbit, and even more practical if you can get all the material and propellant in orbit needed to build an Aldrin cycler, both of which are made far easier by lunar materials.
And then there's the research - the Moon is an invaluable testing ground for learning how to do planetary colonization.
(Also, we really need to do research on how much gravity is enough. Why the Hell does the ISS not have a centrifuge yet?)
Near Earth Asteroids are where it's at. Get a hydrogen fuel source already in space so all you have to do is leave the atmosphere and then you can refuel once in space.
Terraforming Mars would be pretty ridiculous as far as resource expenditures. Who are you going to convince on Earth to fund such a project? No one. Certainly no one with capital to use. Near Earth asteroids and/or moons that actually have developable resources are going to be way more likely. Simply because they can turn a profit, and won't require government support to keep alive, if the private sector gets interested.
Mars is just a dust ball that may or may not have had life at one point. It will be a research outpost if anything for a very long time.
>>6624887 What do humans need? Air, food and sunlight to sustain themselves. Land to support their needs. Resources to satiate their greed. Comets give you only one of that.
Mars has both resources AND land. It can create an economy on its own. Humanity only needs an initial push, be it by any government or transnational company/conglomeration. Whoever is going to make that push is also going to be much, much richer in the end. It's a win-win scenario.
Comets? Who the hell is going to mine a comet? Unless this is Futurama and we need some ice to combat Al Gore.
You mine near Earth ASTEROIDS for metals (Nickel, Iron) and Hydrogen. Those are resources far more easily converted into economic games then terraforming a whole planet. It's also easier to reach said asteroids and exploit them then it is for Mars. Humanity is not known for doing the harder of two goals before the easier one.
Colonizing Mars: Enormous shipments of equipment, habitats, food, air, and other supplies to Mars, including prospecting and mining gear for all that "water" and stuff to actually process it into water. 6 month journey in micro gravity to reach Mars. Colonists have to assemble colony, set up power supply, get air recycling online, get farms started, and figure out SOMETHING to deal with the at least one pregnant woman (because 6 months cooped up in a can). Then they have to find, mine, and process a local water source for water/O2 and hope it is enough to last them from now until the next launch window + 6 months for possible resupply from Earth. Entire thing broadcast to Earth as reality tv show no matter how badly it goes.
Colonizing Venus: Ship built in Earth orbit, doubles as floating colony when it reaches Venus. 3 month trip in microgravity. Enter atmosphere, heat shield is ejected as ballast when the desired pressure/temperature is reached. Integral gas processing system comes online and provides oxygen and water for onboard farms and colonists. Excess hydrogen can be used to lift various mined gasses into low orbit for pickup by asteroid mining companies using Venus as a launching point to reach the asteroid belt. Excess Carbon can be fabricated into additional colony aerostats, creating room for growth.
While there may be money in essentially broadcasting the next darwin awards live from Mars, Venus offers a lot more than Mars with respect to having viable economic reasons for establishing colonies.
>>6624980 Comets have volatiles - water, methane, ammonia, and other vital chemicals. You need them to make rocket fuel and oxidizer, plastics and industrial chemicals, and - vitally - you need those volatiles to run your life-support systems.
Plus, they make good radiation shielding. You want something with a lot of hydrogen to stop cosmic radiation without nasty secondary radiation.
We'll maybe colonize it at a glacial pace, like Antarctica colonization glacial. (Pun semi-intended). Antarctica has a increasing population as well, but it's still in the low thousands and it has a much more hospitable environment than Mars. I think the same will happen with Mars, with a few research stations popping up within the first century after the first touchdown, and growth after that will be slowly, either by more such purely scientific ventures, or in the case of some global calamity, that the research stations get cut off and humans multiply on Mars. It'd be still on an extremely low level naturally.
But what exactly would be the reason for a full scale human colonization when pop growth will peter out in the future? Unless the whole of Earth turns into some dictatorship I see no reason.
>>6621249 Considering Mars life is on a dead world i think it would enjoy some teraforming so long as we didn't contaminate the planet in the process. Hell making the planet resemble its old self mite make finding native Mars life a hell of allot easier. Hell simply making it so you could work outside without a pressure suit would be greatly beneficial.
>>6628744 It would be a LOT easier to paraterraform Mars by just building domes all over the place. That way invested atmosphere won't dissipate over time and it is easier to do incrementally without having to deal with the lack of magnetosphere. Low gravity still remains a long term problem. Stunting the growth of children may be necessary to prevent gigantism related organ failure.
>>6630076 Which is the problem. Charged particles trapped in Jupiter's magnetosphere create utterly ridiculous radiation. Jupiter's moons are right in the middle of what, for Earth, would be the Van Allen belts.
>>6623034 Here are the problems with a Venus colony. First the winds on Venus are ridiculously strong. It would be like living on a ship on the ocean for the rest of your life.
The second problem is you have to build the colony in low earth orbit and then launch it at Venus. This is in contrast to simply using robots to discover caves on Mars and then bringing large inflatable habitats to put up in the caves.
More people would be able to live on Mars than on a floating city over Venus. If we find a cave big enough on Mars, it could potentially house a thousand or more people. The price of building a floating city that could house a thousand people would be utterly astronomical.
>>6630115 You'll still have to ensure that the cave is airtight and survey until you can be sure that whatever caused the cave to exist in the first place won't destroy your colony. Then you're stuck living in a cave. You still need heavy mining gear to go get you water and you'll need some non solar power if you want caves instead of domes.
A floating city on Venus is easier because solar power is available from every direction and geothermal is ubiquitous. The water and oxygen can be easily extracted from the air, which is dense enough at the height the city would float to allow people to step onto a balcony without a pressure suit. And its everywhere, you don't need to prospect for your oxygen/water.
Orbital insertion is easier because there's no landing. Building the colony near Earth orbit allows for design flaws or other problems to be corrected before they become fatal to first wave colonists and basically eliminates setup time once they reach the planet.
>>6621177 >end of the century i'd say 2200's but yeah it is inevitable i was hoping that they would only send scientists to mars, so that it becomes a scientist colony away from all the retardation that is earth, but nah
Colonization for living sake and being able to set up a family or something like that will never be possible since eons of natural selection since the first living cell have perfected us for this gravity pull which is three times greater or lower in mars im not sure of which one, but if we could terraform and grow plants that wouldn't "mind" those conditions, and harvest them with machines, well that'd be great.
>>6621249 who cares if mars has a germ or two on it, NOBODY GIVES A CRAP IF IT CANT KILL US. we have immune systems and antibiotics for a fucking reason And I dont see the backlash of bringing earth germs to mars The whole basis on Planetery protection is retarded.
also mars would be easier to colonize becuase 25hr day night cycle, this is essential for growing crops. >But anon, the soil on mars is very poor in nutrients Thats why we use human waste and our scraps if there are any as fertilizer once we can get the temperature on mars to be normal and pressure up a bit we can start growing crops out of a greenhouse
>>6621671 yep best yet there are more potent greenhouse gasses then CO2
Methane is far more potent then CO2, and since humans produce waste, I know exactly where we can get methane. But CO2 would be best, then we could get plants out there to produce oxygen but that would take a ton of time, so instead another idea is that once the atmosphere is up perform electrolysis in the martian lakes that would exist by then, and BAM. Mass oxygen production.
Didn't read all the other responses so I don't know if anybody has brought this yet, but, here I go:
The problem with terraforming Mars is, that even IF we started by making the atmosphere more dense by burning something to blast CO2 into the atmosphere, it won't have a long-term effect because Mars has no magnetic field. The CO2 blasted into atmosphere would be blown away by the solar wind in months. The missing magnetic field of Mars probably goes back to it's core which probably stopped spinning or isn't liquid anymore. You could kickstart the core by blasting fission bombs but you need an extreme amount of uranium and effort for this to do. So terraforming of Mars sadly won't be a thing.
>>6632749 >IF we started by making the atmosphere more dense by burning something to blast CO2 into the atmosphere We wouldn't "burn something". There's lots of CO2 ice on the planet already. We just have to warm the planet up (such as with CFC factories).
>it won't have a long-term effect because Mars has no magnetic field. The CO2 blasted into atmosphere would be blown away by the solar wind in months. That's not how it works at all. Millennia, maybe. Months, no.
>>6632749 >The CO2 blasted into atmosphere would be blown away by the solar wind in months.
You're off by a lot there. CO2 loss from the Martian atmosphere is estimated around a mere 100 tons/day. At this rate, were Mars to acquire a survivable atmosphere, it would take many millennia to vanish.
If we had the technology to turn Mars into an Earthlike planet then we would have the technology to send spaceships to nearby stars in a few years, why bother with Mars when there are better planets out there?
>>6633022 A reasonably thick atmosphere does that pretty well too. If Mars had a thicker atmosphere, it'd be pretty OK on that front.
It's worth noting that the possibility of terraforming, or at least ecopoesis, relies on there being strong positive feedbacks in the Martian climate. If this isn't true - if a small additional warming does not result in a large release of more CO2 or water vapor - then terraforming of any sort will be nearly impossible.
It took like a billion years for earth to reach our liveable conditions. Terraforming an entire fucking planet is pretty optimistic. I wouldnt count on such a technology for at least another 10000 years.
>>6621680 Why would you want to stop global warming? it has only positives!
>higher temperatures and a larger 'tropical' zone means more food >less extreme weather, hot and hotter is better than hot and cold >massive research data from observing a mass extinction event first hand, plus, we can directly manipulate earths future ecology, deciding which life to keep, and which to get rid of >party with the penguins >more water means more fish, which is the best source of food >less land means less people, which will make space colonization much more atractive
>>6633155 >more water means more fish, which is the best source of food We can certainly have a lot more fish with the combination of higher CO2 and deliberate ocean fertilization: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin
>>6633132 With a space based industrial complex it would become increasingly easy to build atomically thin solar mirrors in Martian orbit. Hell, if we can figure out how to fold the sails into a rocket they could be produced on Earth and used as solar sails to bring supplies to Martian colonists before repurposing them as mirrors.
Once Mars warms up the atmosphere will thicken with CO2, causing a further warming.
Mars has a huge elevation difference between regions, especially when you count its deepest canyons. Those low elevation regions will see a drastic change in air pressure.
At that point Humans might be able to survive on the surface with little more than a commercial winter jacket from Earth and an a small oxygen mask.
>>6633155 except conservation groups are all like >MUH LESSER SPECIES
Idiots don't realize that it really doesn't matter if you preserve or fuck up the current set of ecosystems, as long as it's still livable for HUMANS. The species that survive do so because of chance anyways.
>>6633177 Fuck you. You must not realize that an ecosystem needs EVERY SPECIES to truly thrive. If every niche isn't filled the biome falls apart. You make me sick actually dude wholy fuck. Your kids/grandkids will look back at the internet archive at your post and weep im sure of it.
>>6633190 >You must not realize that an ecosystem needs EVERY SPECIES to truly thrive.
AIDS will be one of the first things we send for sure. No one would ever be happy in a disease free society. Cancer, death, and suffering, is the only reason we appreciate life. Every virus, every poison, every snake, every sexually transmitted disease, has to be taken to Mars.
Selectively replacing genes is fairly easy in modern theory of gentechnology, we have a wide variety of tools.
But it's problematic to pull off for a number of reasons, where I think the most obvious is predicting the role of said new gene in human biochemical pathways.
The body does not have unlimited amounts of energy at its disposal, and everything (excluding unhealty systems, obese etc) is tightly regulated in a dynamic equilibrium. Once you start introducing new factors into a healthy system, you take something away from the vital pathways.
What will most likely happen if you simply input a new gene into a human would just be another set of junk DNA, since the cells have no immediate reason to express it. And figuring out what it will take to properly integrate it into our metabolism takes vast amounts of knowledge of our pathways.
Overall, what I'm saying is that there are 3 simplified outcomes: One; no function and nothing happens, two; the protein is expressed but it disrupts a lot of functions and as a result is toxic, three; it perfectly fits our system (with whatever coenzymes and expression factors are required) but in this case it draws on our system as well and we see a reduced rate of function (limited) of other pathways.
>>6634025 So basically being unable to make a perfect model of a human means we're unable to make a desired genetic alteration without enormous amounts of trial and error, which is ethically problematic in humans.
Maybe we should just be happy with sending radiation hardened super mice to tiny little Mars colonies.
Terraforming a planet would take a massive amount of resources and energy. Resources and energy that would have to be transported 140 million miles from Earth to Mars. And that's only if we can figure out how to do it.
>>6635026 >melt CO2 at ice caps >CO2 causes greenhouse >temperature goes up a little bit >greenhouse melts more CO2 >temperature goes up more >more CO2 melts >lotsa greenhouse >Mars is now at typical Russian temperatures
Alright, I had enough of this shit thread and shitty posts that don't know shit.
Any ball that has enough gravity to sustain an atmosphere can be terraformed. In the case of Mars, the atmosphere is thin and it's damn cold. The first step to thickening the atmosphere and heating the planet would be to introduce CFCs, carbon dioxide can easily be introduced by self sustaining(solar/wind/nuclear power) assembly lines pumping out building materials without the need for humans to be present at all. Another more radical way to heat and thicken the atmosphere is to steer asteroids into Mars at such a trajectory that all the ice on the asteroid turns into water vapor and is trapped within the closed system of Mars without actually bombarding the planet. We have had the capability to do both for years, read a book.
>>6635131 Mars is losing atmosphere at a rate of just 100 tons per day. Even if it were losing important atmospheric components at 1000 times that rate (Hydrogen, especially, will escape faster, and a thicker atmosphere will also contribute to Jeans escape), it would take millions of years to undo any significant terraforming effort.
I think centuries of work and trillions of dollars for a few million years of a habitable Mars is a fair trade.
Mars lost its original, thick atmosphere over a period of billions of years. Atmospheric escape is sloooow.
>>6636332 CFCs have a VERY short lifetime under Martian conditions. They stick around for a long time on Earth, but the high UV flux in the Martian atmosphere would quickly break them down. If Mars had an ozone layer, they'd last longer, but of course CFCs break that down...
>>6636333 The burden is on those who make silly claims such as terraforming Mars being a viable operation.
>>6636368 >Mars is losing atmosphere at a rate of just 100 tons per day. Then you'll have to produce at least 20 tons of oxygen a day to compensate that loss. Oxygen has a price: 0.2 dollars per kilogram when produced in large quantities. This makes up for 4000 dollars a day, or 1.46 million dollars a year. And all of this for the sole purpose of COMPENSATING the loss of oxygen. You might say >wow, only 1 millions dollar a year? totally doable m8
Well, let's make another calculation. You want to create an atmosphere on Mars. The best method for creating oxygen is through electrolysis of water, since it's cheap and reliable. How much will it cost you? Let's first estimate the volume of the atmosphere to be created: the surface of mars is 1.5*10^8 squared kilometers, the height should be approximately 10 kilometers. Roughly, you wanna fill up 1.5*10^9 cubic kilometers with your atmosphere, that's 3*10^8 cubic kilometers of oxygen (if you want that oxygen to make up for 20% of your atmosphere). Oxygen has a density of approximately 1,5 kg·m-3 = 1.5*10^6 tons.km-3 So the total mass of oxygen you need to produce is 1.5*10^6 * 3*10^8 = 4.5*10^14 tons Total cost of the operation (if 1kg oxygen costs 0.2 dollars): 9.45*10^16 dollars How much money does it actually represents? There is approximately 60 trillions dollars worth of money in the world, or 6*10^13 dollars: thousands times less than the cost for your silly project. And that's not taking into account the cost for the building of the factories manufacturing that oxygen, the cost for logistic, the cost for the workers, etc.
Not even mentioning the fact that, even if you produced 1,000,000,000 tons of oxygen a day (fucking HUGE figures), it would still take 4.5*10^5 days, or approximately 1200 years to create your atmosphere.
>>6636374 I'd prefer a more passive means of heating Mars, namely solar mirrors. If we are colonizing Mars then we likely already have the space based industrial infrastructure necessary to make big enough mirrors. I'd prefer a world that doesn't fall into a permanent ice age just because civilization and the CFC factories collapse.
And I would assume Mars would have some protection from UV rays as its atmosphere thickens, between the ionosphere and perhaps ozone layer.
>>6636666 >>6636672 First off, it would be about adding CO2 the atmosphere, not O2. There is already dry ice on Mars that will turn into atmospheric CO2 with a little bit of warming (helped along by the increasing CO2 itself). From that point moholes into the Martian crust or de-orbiting some comets might help add gasses to Mars, but not much is needed to give sufficient atmospheric pressure to the lower elevations.
Once the pressure and temperature is sufficient to allow liquid water on the Martian surface we introduce life. If you don't mind an oxygen mask the planet is poor man's Earth at that point. If you want people to be able to walk around without a mask then the main problem is finding enough of a buffer gas like nitrogen, but comets may be able to help with that.
>>6636666 That's completely invalid. For one thing, that's liquid oxygen, which must be cooled, compressed, and distilled from air; we don't need either liquefied or purified oxygen for this purpose.
Second, the method of production is totally different - LOX is extracted by distilling it from air at cryogenic temperatures. Needless to say, that's not how we'd be making it on Mars, on account of there's no gaseous oxygen in the air.
Your number is completely and utterly useless in this situation.
Plus, you wouldn't want to add oxygen as your main gas, you'd want CO2.
(Making Mars breathable without a mask is impossible - you'd need to add huge amounts of nitrogen or other inert gas to bring the CO2 to non-toxic percentages. You can only make it survivable without a pressure suit.)
>>6636786 Impossible is a strong word. Personally I'd consider it "terraformed" as soon as humans can walk around in a commercial winter jacket and breathe using a light mask (either using an oxygen tank or a CO2 scrubber), but we COULD introduce a buffer gas by directing comets at Mars. I've never found the numbers though about how many comets pass close enough to the Sun and and how much buffer gas they may contain. I'm not sure if the latter value even exists.
>>6636804 Alright, let's do the math. Humans need at least 16 kPa pO2 , and a maximum of 1% CO2.
This means to be breathable on its own, assuming Mars maintains its current 0.6 kPa pCO2, at least 16 kPa pO2 and another 43.4 kPa of buffer will be needed. Probably more, to compensate for the additional CO2 needed to maintain a greenhouse effect. (Of course, the buffer might include other greenhouse gases)
I don't feel like it right now (on my phone), but it'd be trivial to work out the needed mass of buffer from there. Work out how much mass per square meter in Martian gravity would produce that pressure; multiply by Martian surface area.
>>6637032 >no space hippies/EPA People aren't allowed to let even microorganisms free in Antarctica. Mars would be that on steroids. Every sneeze will need to be ziplocked, vacuum sealed, incinerated, and then the ashes shipped back to Earth. That won't let up until every nook and cranny of Mars has been studied to make sure there is no native life or no signs of past life.
>>6636731 >First off, it would be about adding CO2 the atmosphere, not O2.
>>6636786 >Plus, you wouldn't want to add oxygen as your main gas, you'd want CO2.
That's even more delusional than what I originally thought. Going through the burden of heating Mars with some ridiculous mirrors in space to heat up Mars ice, or deviating comets (ridiculously small) to add co2... for the sole purpose of accommodating the atmospheric pressure? Wow, totally worth the trillions you're gonna invest if you ask me. You don't even have the maths to guarantee you that it can be done (ie, there's enough co2 caught in ice to fill up Mars atmosphere).
>>6638018 Also, you wouldn't be diverting comets for the CO2; you'd want the ammonia, which is a powerful greenhouse gas.
It's thought that there's enough frozen CO2 in the south polar cap and adsorbed in the polar soil to raise the atmosphere by 30 kPa of CO2 , if heated about 4 degrees. But this really isn't known; it's entirely possible Mars might just not have enough accessible volatiles to support life. We just don't know.
(Martian nitrogen and nitrates, which would be completely vital for life, are especially unknown.)
>>6621177 >Once mankind starts expanding into the solar system the severe underpopulation problem of the species will be solved. >underpopulation >under Is that a typo or am I misunderstanding something huge?
>>6641910 If something befalls Earth, be it a natural catastrophe, a cosmic catastrophe, or a human induced catastrophe, there's a high chance that we are doomed. If something cosmic hits the Earth, there is a high chance the Moon will be affected too. Colonizing Mars, even if it's just underground burrows or settling domed craters, gives our special a higher chance of survival.
Besides this, there are wast tracts of space on the earth that IS actually underpopulated. Europe in general has a relatively low population. Midland USA and Canada. Siberia, midland Australia.
>>6641937 We don't actually know that. We have literally zero data on how bad Martian gravity is for people. The only thing known about how much gravity people need for long term health is that it's "more than zero gees" and "not more than one gee."
>>6641962 At one third gravity, we can easily predict that the lack of gravity will substantially impact human health. The only thing in question is whether or not a child can be brought to term and live to adulthood to reproduce.
Anyone going there from Earth will live a substantially shorter life. This could be good for Earth if people are told this, yet go anyway as it would reduce the number of idiots on Earth.
>>6621147 We can't send humans to do the pre-colonization work. Your mission anon, if you wish to accept it is the following: Build robots that can make habitats, landing ports and fuel-depots on Luna and Mars. Then watch the pictures of the structures being built patiently, and wait untill the port is ready to receive cheaply-sent colons who will show up and have an already-built base to start from. This message will auto-refresh in 10 seconds...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.