Slashdot Mirror
Planning For The Colonization Of Mars
Tiburana writes: "NASA recently held a conference called "The Physics and Biology of Making Mars Habitable". The current line of inquiry is to introduce microbes to recreate the greenhouse effect that is wreaking havoc on our environemnt to raise the temperature of the Martian surface to accomodate the types of life with which we are familiar.
" The submittor also expressed some concerns about how humans handling of the Earth - and whether we'll repeat the same problems on other planets.
What would be quicker - spend a few hundred kabillion dollars modify an entire planets weather system, and wait a thousand or so years for it to green out, or spend a few billions of dollars on genetic research engineering and just make bodies better suited to that atmosphere and climate?
...
I mean, for as long as we're being sci-fi about all this, don't forget that the hothouse project isn't the only proposal on the table
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
If you want to take a look at an unusual bit of the history of Colonial North America, check out the history of Acadia/Nova Scotia, in which the British essentially attack French settlers for the audacity of having "gone native" and befriending the aboriginal people.
You know? NASA is an amazing organisation:
It blows up Viking biology missions,
it "forgets" to proceed the biological searches for more than 25 years,
it blows up several exobiology experiments,
it ignores tons of evidence on late presence of water in Mars,
it makes a silly sub-scientific showdown about Life in Mars and blows up the whole thing,
it blows up several Mars missions, experiments and projects.
And now talks about the "colonisation" of Mars? By Earth biota? So we are back to 1964 and some jerks at JPL, who, on the base of a few photos from Mariner 4, cried over the world that Mars is dead and our duty is to colonise that damn piece of dirt over there. Very scientific from the part of NASA. We still don't know if there is or was Life in Mars. However we are ready, right now, to blow up the whole planet with another stupid experiment even before we get sure of this. More than 35 years passed and NASA is still in the same level of intelligence.
Hope that intelligent aliens are really quite far away from us and don't see these "adventures". This disregarding and selfish view of other worlds would surely give them a good opinion about our culture...
Basically there has to be a better way of escaping the Earths atmosphere surely. A lot of people think that the only reason that NASA persists with shuttles and rockets is because it is good for the american aerospace industry and the american airforce.
What about giant elevator like you see in sci-fi films. Let's face it, anything that doesn't involve sitting on top of several tons of rocket fuel would do.
The problem is that chemical rockets are the only practical option we have for getting into space at all, for the next several decades at the *very* least.
The reason: Thrust. We have other drives in production, finally, but none of them are *anywhere* close to being able to produce thrust above one gravity, and they aren't going to any time soon - they're high efficiency drives designed for long-haul propulsion of craft that are already in space.
What other options do we have? The NERVA drive? Only if we want to spray radioactive exhaust everywhere. Fusion? Not for another few decades, and almost certainly not at one gravity (plasma pressure won't be high enough in any magnetic field we can produce, and inertial schemes aren't very practical as thrusters). Ion drives and so forth are low-thrust drives - completely useless for ground-to-orbit, however useful they may be out in space.
Laser launching? You can only use the atmosphere as reaction mass for the first few tens of kilometres. This gives accelerations that are far too high for human passengers, even if the craft and ground-station could handle the required laser intensity. Carry your own reaction mass? You can't heat it much hotter than conventional rocket fuel without destroying your rocket nozzles, which means your cargo to ship weight ratio will be similar to that of chemical rockets.
As a cargo lifter, this *might* be practical.
A railgun? Again, unless it's a cargo lifter, it'll have to be hundreds or thousands of kilometres long, and the projectile will vapourize on contact with the atmosphere (rockets don't get up to orbital velocity until they're out of most of the atmosphere).
A space elevator? Maybe in a few decades when we have the required materials, but certainly not any time soon. Nothing we're even close to producing in quantity will cut it, though we have glimmers of interesting materials in the lab.
In short, chemical rockets persist because they're simply the best tool we have for the job.
As far as bringing water to mars is concerned, it would cost *far* less to transport it from the asteroid belt. Earth's gravity well is *very* deep, and we have to use inefficient high-thrust rockets to get out of it. Ocean level problems can be solved by paying more attention to the composition of our atmosphere (tailoring greenhouse effect and cloud-forming to suit our needs).
well, since today (according to the learning kingdom) is the anniversary of the "Outer Space treaty" let me quote them: Nearly a decade after the USSR launched the first Sputnik into orbit around the earth and just two and a half years before the US landed the first men on the moon, the Outer Space Treaty was signed. Modeled on the Antarctic Treaty, it sought to set the terms for the exploration and exploitation of a newly opened territory. In addition to outlawing any exclusive national claims to extraterrestrial regions, it limited the use of the moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes. It prohibited placing nuclear or other mass-destruction weapons in orbit, on the moon or other celestial body, or on any sort of space station. The treaty also outlawed using the outer space environment for any form of weapons testing. Signed by the U.S., USSR, and Great Britain (which at that time still planned a space program), the Outer Space Treaty was a major step in arms control. After the treaty came into effect, the U.S. and the USSR began to collaborate in space enterprises, including jointly manned missions. History and full text of the Outer Space Treaty: link
------ Poo-tee-weet?
1 and 2 are reasonable points, but I don't think they're much to worry about. There's no way a project like this can get started before there has been people on Mars for decades. The planet will be well explored before we start, and if there's life or any other things worth preserving, that can be figured out in good time.
Point 3 is nonsense. There is no connection between the two, other than cheap rhetoric. It's like saying I shouldn't see that movie until I've lost 5 pounds.
And you don't seem to consider the good in making a hellhole into a possibly very nice home for billions of people and other life forms. Does that mean nothing to you?
A lot of people are confused by the word "own". If A owns X, it really just means that A is the one who gets to decide what to do with X.
Keeping this in mind, statements like "we don't own this planet" turn out to be meaningless rhetoric.
The moon would also make an excellent forward base for further colonization & exploration missions. With 1/6 earth gravity, ships launched from the moon (or lunar orbit) would be able to devote FAR more of their mass to payload and less on fuel.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Arg, why are people always thinking too fast? We should first colonize the deep ocean, then a meteor, then the moon, then Mars, then the sun. We can then send off intergalactic units to conquer the universe!
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Why is this not mentioned? Do the authors want to cloud the public's mind with talk of "ecosystems" and "terraforming," just so we won't ask about the brave men and women who will fight and die on Mars to secure territory for us to colonize?
If anyone from NASA is reading this, you have to realize that the public is not stupid. We know what is entailed in colonizing a new planet. You need to start thinking about something closer to full disclosure, please.
:eof
The submittor also expressed some concerns about how humans handling of the Earth - and whether we'll repeat the same problems on other planets
Not a chance. Unless our society grows up, accepts responsibility for its actions and sets our priorities straight there is little chance we'll 'do this to Mars.'
Our present culture is very capable of making the trip to Mars - but we dont care enough to do it. By the same token, we will never make the attempt to TerraForm Mars unless we've wisened up about the way we treat Terra. One (our growth) will come before any attempt to TerraForm Mars.
. Or have we already become that extreme of a disposible society that we can throw away an entire planet
That is a very telling and terrible prospect - I had visions of humanity evolving into a 'culture of aliens who move from planet to planet sucking up its life and leaving it for dead' that we've all read in various stories... ouch what a terrible thought.
Consider this, the best people suited for traveling to Mars are vegetarians and vegans. They are the most conditioned to not eating (craving) meat and if they eat properly and exercise are in excellent physical condition.
Why does not eating meat come into play? Logistically, when NASA does send the first groups of people to colonize Mars, without new innovations in space travel, sending livestock to Mars is too expensive and plain goofy. And the huge supply of frozen hamburgers will run out without constant supplies sent from Earth. ;-)
The cheapest and most effective solution is to simply grow the food there. Live off the land. Water seems to be available and nearly everything necessary for the human body can be gotten from plants. Except vitamin B12. But vitamin suppliments will take care of that. =)
Hey NASA, i'm ready for Mars!
This touches somewhat on my topic here, but I still don't agree with you. There is a big difference between colonizing Mars and colonizing Africa, and it's a bit sad if we would let the mistakes of one prevent the other.
The difference?
There are no humans on mars.
That means no presumable victims and no previous owners of the land. Nonetheless I think an international effort would be much more positive than the colonization of Mars by one single nation. If we don't go in there together now, we will have serious fights over the land later on.
Will code a sig generator for food
I realize it's a somewhat different problem. But if we can introduce forests in the Sahara we will not only improve the life conditions of millions, perhaps even the whole African continent, we will also learn a great deal on how to do the same things on Mars.
I bet planting vegetation in the Sahara would be a lot cheaper than sending space-ships to Mars, but not as glorious and 'american'.
Will code a sig generator for food
Why don't you sell your computer and donate the cash (or at least your savings on electricity) to research efforts to cure cancer or AIDS?
Your computer expands your personal capabilities; a Mars colony will expand humanity's capabilities.
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
Except that corporations are creatures of national laws. And the Outer Space Treaty treats all launches from the territory of any party to the treaty as if they were launched by the party.
e Warner running around.
And no company is sufficiently wealthy or powerful enough to be autonomous from its shareholders and its creditors and the U.S. government and the EU to pull it off, even if you had an AOL-Boeing-Exxon-GE-GM-Microsoft-Mobil-Nissan-Tim
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
Helium-3 and gravity.
A Martian agricultural colony could support both lunar and gas giant mining of Helium-3 with food for a lower marginal cost than any other option (except maybe O'Neil colonies). And helium-3 fusion is power without radioactive waste, without greehouse gasses and/or particulate matter, without the land use issues of Earth-based solar and wind and hydroelectric...
Sure, such a colony would first be closed greehouses and habitats. But if their role in the energy trade made them wealthy enough, they'd probably themselves start work on terraforming Mars.
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
I know that it would be theoretically possible to colonize Mars and turn it into a Earth-like planet. The problem is not techonology but one if time and money. The biggest backers of this so called project would be the big international Space communities like the US, Russia, England, etc.. I do not think that coutries will be willing to spend trillions (guess) to colonize another planet when they can spend that money here to improve things.
Time will be another factor, It would take a long time for Mars to even start showing signs that our efforts are working. It would be even longer before people would be able to live there and even then not many (
Ok Enough bad talking. I REALLY do hope this happens and I hope that the people who ever is in charge of this project once it gets under way really think about how they will do this, the last thing we need is to have a Standard/Metric calculation mismatch and turn Mars into Waterworld!
Later
Lord Arathres
stainless steel
as geologically ephemeral inhabitants of the earth we do not own this planet,
Define 'own'.
I'm not nitpicking here, I'm pointing a very common flaw in reasoning. This flaw is very similar to the one which leads some people to believe in the existance of gods.
Let me explain. 'property' and 'meaning' are human symbols, which have a signification, in a communication between human beings. It is a built-in thought process for us, communicating beings, to look for 'meanings' in things. A word has a meaning. Pictures have meaning, such as an arrow. An open or a closed door have a meaning ... because someone wrote / drew / opened / closed them.
Primitives found meanings in volcanic eruptions, eclipses, and various natural events. This is part of what is called 'animism', attributing meanings and intent in natural intent. Religiosity is an extrapolation of this tendency to attribute meanings to everything in the world.
When you look at things this way, your usage of the word 'owning' in this context, where there is no human being, no human communication involved, is inappropriate. Which is why it seems to have a negative connotation. Of course, nobody 'own' this planet, or another, or the sun or the moon, because 'owning' at this scale does'nt mean anything ... 'property' exists only as long as enough people believe it and act accordingly.
The church used to own most of the land in my country two centuries ago. Suddenly, the people decided it that they did'nt. So they didn't anymore.
(This might sound offtopic, but I hope people will get my point).
--
Yes, the title of this post is intentionally inflammatory. Sure there is an environment on Mars, but as far as we know there's no biosphere and we will know for sure long before these methods become feasible. And even if there are some microbes lurking in underground hot springs - why exactly should I care? I care about people and the continued existence of the human race. Ok, so I'm a homo sapiens chauvinist. Don't expect me to apologize for that.
Unless people suddenly stop reproducing and/or decide it's OK to kill billions of people we will run out of resources here on Earth. The first option doesn't seem likely and the other... well, it's all too likely but I don't WANT it to happen.
The only other course for sustaining this exponential growth is to use the resources of outer space and do it quickly and without too much sentiments. We need do be very careful before doing anything to Mars, but not because we need to preserve it in it's current state - just because we won't have a second chance. It's the best candidate for settlement and we don't want to screw up.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Actually, to increase the greenhouse effect on Mars would require a lot of water. On Earth, water vapor is the major greenhouse gas and the same would probably be true on a terraformed Mars. The obvious method is to crash icy asteroids/comets into Mars. Probably have to scatter several carbon-rich asteroids around to increase the available carbon, also. That will be messy and noisy, as with most biology. Fortunately most of that can be done at the start of the process, and maintenance doesn't have to be so dramatic (ie, put ice in orbit and drop small pieces of it -- overly time consuming for huge quantity needed to start the process).
Here.
It's a shame we're almost no closer to colonizing extraterrestrial bodies than we were 30 years ago. The far-future plans NASA periodically comes up with are a lot more interesting than the actual missions they like to carry out...
--
Anyway, I have legitimate concerns as well over whether this is a Good Thing. I have no doubt that NASA scientists could do it if given enough time, but then what?
Will it be International territory like Antarctica, or will the U.S. just annex the whole damn thing? Nothing escapes Politics, and if the US ends up funding most of it you can bet the US Polititians will behave like they own the place.
One things for sure - once they find something deep witin Mars that worth mining or drilling for, they'll forget all the environmental concerns and implement a Scorched Earth (Scorched Mars?) Strategy sooner than you can say "Martian Oilman".
We gave Mars that nice environment, and we can take it away...
The statement is not correct. One should say "translucid" instead of "transparent". The fact is that light may reach deeps up to a few millimeters in many rocks. On a desert this is quite important for survival of microorganisms. On Antarctica dry valleys, the most Mars-like environment on Earth, several organisms manage to fight cold, dryness and the higher level of UV radiation of these places, by living at these deeps inside rocks. It is exactly this point that puts into question the idea of a "sterile Mars". Yes, Antarctica is much more benign than Mars but if liquens, algae and bacteria manage to survive this way, then it is theoretically possible that the same could happen in Mars.
In Viking mission times, based on these facts, a group of scientists, one of them Carl Sagan, simulated in lab the Mars environment and discovered a few bacteria that can survive much the same way we see in Antarctica. So the question of very little green Martians cannot be put away until now. Some may counterweight this fact with Viking experiments. But we know now that part of them were flawed or suspect of being so.
Many people talk about the fact that Viking showed no organics in Mars. Curiously the Vikings suggested that Mars possess less organics than the Moon. And this is a nonsense somehow. Mars is much closer to the Asteroid Belt and Jupiter than us. So, in its History it should have suffered more impacts than us. Not only from asteroids but also from comets. How can Mars be more "inorganic" than the Moon? Moon surface receives a lot more radiation and still we got minimal traces of organic compounds. So there is some reason to rise a few serious questions about the reliability of Viking experiments.
So before talking about "colonosations" think: have we exhausted all chances to find Life in Mars?
Make no mistake - we can influx it with Nuclear waste, chemicals, pollutants of all stripes and build whatever the hell we want to there. It doesn't make a whit of difference to anyone. No life = No environment = Nothing we need to worry about preserving.
As for point 3, I think you are jumping to conclusions somewhat. Nobody is suggesting that we throw away the Earth - the simple fact is that the Earth we be the home to the vast, vast majority of Mankind for a long time. Just consider Mars a backup. If anything goes wrong here, then our species will live onward somewhere else. It greatly increases our species chances of survival in the long term to occupy two planets, and not just one. The dinosaurs could have done with a similar backup, but they didn't have one, and look what happened to them.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
From the second link: (the "introducing microbes" one)
Above: In many desert environments, Chroococcidiopsis grows on the undersides of transparent rocks, just below the surface.
I've driven through desert areas several times, and I haven't seen any "transparent rocks."
Oh...
Wait...
Never mind.
--Shoeboy
We have scarcely had the chance to properly explore the Martian environment and we're already talking about wreaking havoc on an unexplored ecosystem. Before we unleash the greenhouse effect on a planet we should do a few things first.
1) Understand just what we're doing. We can't even agree if the greenhouse effect is really happening, let alone what factors are significantly contributing to it. We need to know the effects of our actions before we stumbly blindly forwardwith this plan.
2) Properly explore the planet before erasing vast parts or its geological history. I'm reminded of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt, which when built in the early 1960s led to flooding that buried countless archeological sites. The 3 Gorges Dam in China is another example. If there is any fossil evidence of life on Mars we may be losing it forever by terraforming the planet.
3) Finally, try fixing our own planet before we undertake the extremely expensive task of relocating to another planet. Now I'm an advocate of the space program, but rather than screw up another planet ecologically, we should fix our own planet first. Or have we already become that extreme of a disposible society that we can throw away an entire planet?
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...