Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Propose 'National Parks' On Mars
colonist writes "Microbiologist Charles Cockell and astrobiologist Gerda Horneck want to turn seven areas on Mars into 'national parks', conserved in their pristine state. 'It is the right of every person to stand and stare across the beautiful barrenness and desolation of the Martian surface without having to endure the eyesore of pieces of crashed spacecraft scattered across the landscape,' they write. Cockell is not against colonization, though. He says that setting aside some areas for conservation would free up the rest of the planet for settlement."
Someone is thinking ahead. For once. Refreshing to see.
There are, in fact, already treaties regarding space colonization. Just because it's not possible -yet- doesn't mean we should wait until it starts happening to consider how we want it to go.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Na they should be designated 'international historical parks' since any colonization on Mars would probably be by a multinational group.
These earth-like ideas of conservation don't map onto Mars and other planets *yet*. Roping off an area of Mars where the ships should not land!?! We're just starting to explore it. We don't yet know which areas are best to conserve and which are best to settle upon. Given that settlement could be an awfully boring and restrictive lifestyle, I'm sure that a lot will be conserved because of the harshness of the environment. Humans will have a hard-enough time preserving themselves in the Mars environment at first. I'm sure NASA's going to blow up a $25 mil. ship (or whatever amount of $) when they see it's accidentally heading for a conserved piece of land. I think these people's efforts would (in the meantime) be better applied here on earth. It's a novel idea for Mars but way too early. Let's not legislate Mars quite yet.
Kim Stanley Robinson tackled many of these issues in his Mars Trilogy. I couldn't beleive it when I saw this headline, I'm certain some of the thoughts from that series has affected a great many Mars enthusiast...
We might have Reds vs. Greens before we even go there...
This is very interesting. When most of us think of conservation, do we think of conserving geography itself, or the life that lives on top of and within it? Presuming there is no life on mars, is there anything to actually conserve? Curious as to how others feel.
which makes more sense economically? Terraforming the entire planet
I'm curious - has any serious science been done on the feasability of this concept? Generally speaking, I think manned spaceflight is a giant waste of time and money and a Mars mission would be a stupid idea, but IF we could actually make the surface inhabitable that might justify the enormous expense of transporting people there. However, I haven't seen any proof that it's possible to raise the temperature to standards tolerable for agriculture. Given the immense temperature variation just on Earth, how warm might we expect the equator on Mars to be? Does it have seasons?
Colonisation versus Conservation is a major part of the story in the "Mars Trilogy". Basically the ecologists breakaway and combine with the geologists to try to keep Mars as pristine as possible.
I always thought this a bad plot device and resented the sympathy that Kim Stanley Robinson held for the 'Red Mars' antagonists.
Initial developments in the colonisation of Mars will be necessarily of quite small scale. Small colonies of Humans (and robotic helpers/tools) will just not have enough resources to inflict large changes upon the environment. As for the suggested despoiling of Olympus Mons by future mountaineers; WTF?
Maybe in three hundred years time we will have enough resources to begin some serious terraforming of Mars. Maybe then the setting aside of some areas will become a serious goal. Maybe then I would be in favor of reserve areas on Mars. Until then, all areas must be free game as we should use all opportunity to get established upon another planet.
Hey, I'm not going unless I can take my dirt bike and my snow-mobile. It's a freaking wasteland for christ's sake!
I think manned spaceflight is a giant waste of time and money
On this note, you should really look into the research done for it before you say it is a waist. Especially some of the medical research done to help support it. Also, once we get a space elevator up,the cost will come down dramatically.
raise the temperature
We crash several comets into the atmosphere to make it denser. Then start making greenhouse gasses (i.e. Carbon Dioxide) to hold in the heat.
how warm might we expect the equator on Mars to be? Does it have seasons?
How warm do you want it to be is a better question. Mars gets 1/4th as much light as earth. Given that earth radiates/reflects away a lot of heat/light that we get from the sun we can give it earth temperatures. Mars does have an axial tilt so it does have seasons. Read here for more on it's seasons.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
that reflects my thinking too. this scientist has spectacularly misplaced priorities. we let corporations and our consumer culture piss all over the jewel of the solar system, but want to keep Mars free from a cubic meter of spacecraft?
Whatever!
Or do you plan to re-bombard the planet every so often?
Due to the lesser gravity the atmosphere would slowly shrink and get lost to space. Earth atmoshphere is being lost the same way only it is much slower due to the hgiher gravity. However, as I understand it one we got Mars up to a high enough atmospheric pressure (say, 1/2 an atmoshpere [airplane cabin cruising pressure I am told]) You might have to add another comet once every, say, 10,000 (yes ten thousand) years.
Oh, and moons are supposed to help strip off the atmoshpere faster. But the two little asteroids Mars has for moons are too small to do much for that. It was mostly Mars's lower gravity that caused the loss of atmoshpere so much more quickly than earths.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Shouldn't we be a little bit more worried about the situation here on earth first? Between the issues in our current national parks and if they will exist with all the clutter and chaos of our society. Mars is YEARS off from inhabitation anyway, so why worry about that now? I mean its a great idea and all but it is much more important to first consider how we will land and live on the surface let alone utilize a national park...
_
Free 27" Sony WEGA TV
How about we GET there first, then colonize, then let all the pussy treehuggers whine about it?
Rockhuggers, not treehuggers.
Then here's an idea: how about we leave the entire thing off limits for another couple of centuries until we've had a chance to study it?
It's brand new. It's totally pristine. It contains applications of geology, meteorology, and maybe even biology that have never been seen before.
I'd be all for scientific expeditions to Mars, even long term ones, but I can't see the point in sending anybody there to live for any purpose other than science. Take a couple of centuries and watch the climate change without significant human interference. Humanity has waited millions of years to get there; a few centuries won't make any difference.
(Especially if you're talking about "terraforming" it. We don't have the slightest idea what's on that planet and we're already talking about making it look just like here. Please, please, please let the geophysicists and soil chemists and wind science guys have a good solid look at the place before you start changing its chemistry permanently.)
How many vehicles are we planning on crashing on the planet so that you can't look anywhere without seeing one of them? At the current rate we're sending out Mars missions... how long would it even take?