Slashdot Mirror
Terraforming - Human Destiny or Hubris?
jangobongo writes "Space.com has a thought-provoking article written by Dave Brody for Ad Astra Magazine about the practical and ethical aspects of terraforming other planets. Mars is currently the focus of most terraforming debates, but the author's conclusion is: 'What works is what takes the least work: [terraform] asteroid/comet resources in near Earth orbits... Humanity would get lots and lots of cheap, free-floating, scalable, designer settlements in interesting, useful orbits.' These would then become stepping stones to other planets in our solar system and beyond."
You could build some sort of settlement, but it would always have to be enclosed. The resources and conditions are just not right for atmospheres.
I think there comes a time when a society or civilization must stand up and ask "What is important to us?"
As there's no current signs of anything we consider 'meaningful' life, it appears that the nearest planet shall be our manifest destiny. If, however, there was ANY reasonably meaningful life detected (or evidence of past life), I think this would be a much more significant debate.
Video Phone Blogs send video messages straight to the web.
... that the whole mars terraforming thing was mostly a way for scientists to get people to pay for missions to mars, to answer basic questions about the universe, because it's easier for people to grasp.
Much the same way "doing research in space to cure cancer" was a great way to pay for a space station, at least until it became something to keep the Russians busy with so they wouldn't make ICBMs for North Korea or something.
Gentoo Sucks
Immortality?
Well, ok... But you're going to get pretty dang bored after the last star goes out.
What we need to have is giant solar panels in orbit around Venus to beam back all that solar energy as useable energy. With the supply of most fossil fuels disappearing over the next 50 years, we need a new alternative energy source. Assuming, of course, that the ozone doesn't disappear first and we all die from radiation exposure. Maybe we need to build underground cities first. Hmmm...
Which would then need to be terraformed.
Um no.
You are missing the point. Terraforming is an economically and logistically horrible idea. If you can travel to a planet, you're using the planet as an anchor to set up a refueling station on an planetoid or otherwise mobile orbiting station. You dont want to store supplies or even a civilization on the planet, where you're having to write off most of what is sent there because of the amount of energy required to retrieve it from gravity well (massive for most outer planets) is prohibitive.
What the article doesnt take into account, is that the energy required to putter us around the solar system is going to make the energy required to pull out of a gravity well, look trivial.
Given current science and not relying on faith that a "star trek warp drive" will be invented, the practicality of terraforming just isn't there. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Up until recently, I thought terraforming was a neat idea and great fodder for science fiction. Then it made me realize how fragile the human body is, that we would have to orchestrate a Great Pyramid-caliber exercise to make a planet livable for our delicate bodies.
I'd much sooner see this R&D money go towards solving the geopolitical and socioeconomic problems that plague us already--rather than towards bluesky research that may be aborted by nuclear or bio-weapon cataclysm.
Am I just a party pooper?
I've always been a fan of boring out a station in the asteroid Eros, and spinning it up like the picture shows to create 1g artificial gravity at the ends of the asteroid.
Seems like the only way to get a large colony in space is to use materials already there.
Eros is attractive because we have already landed a craft on it.
To successfully terraform, OR to create a space settlement you need to establish a self-sustaining ecosystem. Well, theoretically you could support a colony with massive (literally) transfers of resources from Earth, but that would increase the costs of a colonization project at least 10 fold.
The only attempt that's been made to establish a self-sustaining ecology is the well-known Biodome project, which should've been promoted as an engineering prototype project, rather than being slurred as a badly-designed research project. In an engineering project, the objective would be to get the thing to work, while as a research project they didn't have sufficient experimental controls.
If we can't maintain a closed eco-system here on earth, it will take decades or centuries before we could do it in space or on the surface of another planet. To attempt space colonization before that would be suicidal.
Another plus of investigating the ecological aspects of space colonization first is that it will be easier to get buy-in from the Earth-first crowd, since such research can be used to develop techniques to terraform, optimize or restore Earth's environment.
We are the 198 proof..
This debate me of something I saw over on SciScoop some time ago:
(pasted below)
I recently heard Rick Tumlinson of the Space Frontier Foundation speak on a couple of related issues, and he gave us a very interesting perspective on all this - to paraphrase as best as I can remember:
"There are three distinct philosophies on doing things in space, which we can identify with three individuals: Carl Sagan, Wernher von Braun, and Gerard O'Neill. To the Sagans of the world, space is wondrous, grand, amazing, spectacular, and we should be learning all we can about it - but 'don't touch'! To the von Brauns, space is a proving ground for national grandeur, a place where we show how our engineers are the best, where we build the biggest rockets, the best space stations, and parade our astronaut heros to the world. To the O'Neills, however, space is the new American West: a place of hope and economic opportunity for all people."
Both the Sagans and the von Brauns have strong and traditional representations at NASA - the scientific and robotic missions follow that Sagan philosophy of "explore, but don't touch". Apollo was of course the quintessential von Braunian project, and the manned programs at NASA have attempted to follow in that mode ever since. But the O'Neill vision of space as a place for all people, as a location with resources bringing economic opportunity for the world, has had very little say in NASA up to this point.
Back to the current discussion, on the topic of terraforming Saganites seem to be against it quite often, as they're afraid of humans disturbing the sanctity of space. There's also bioconservatives who tend to see humanity as a virus which they want to keep quarantined to Earth, if not eradicated completely.
Many von Braunians are in favor of terraforming, while O'Neillians are very much in favor of both terraforming and orbital settlements. I personally think of myself as a Saganite that's recently "converted" to being an O'Neillian. There are few things I want to see more than see humanity become a multi-planet, spacefaring species.
I recently found out about paraterraforming, which seems like an ideal way to do things. Basically, instead of terraforming an entire planet at once over a period of centuries, you construct a habitat which expands over time. From Wikipedia:
r aforming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming#Parater
Also known as the "worldhouse" concept, paraterraforming involves the construction of a habitable enclosure on a planet which eventually grows to encompass most of the planet's usable area. The enclosure would consist of a transparent roof held one or more kilometers above the surface, pressurized with a breathable atmosphere, and anchored with tension towers and cables at regular intervals. A worldhouse can be constructed with technology known since the 1960s.
Paraterraforming has several advantages over the traditional approach to terraforming. For example, it provides an immediate payback to investors; the worldhouse starts out small in area (a domed city for example), but those areas provide habitable space from the start. The paraterraforming approach also allows for a modular approach that can be tailored to the needs of the planet's population, growing only as fast and only in those areas where it is required. Finally, paraterraforming greatly reduces the amount of atmosphere that one would need to add to planets like Mars in order to provide Earthlike atmospheric pressures. By using a solid envelope in this manner, even bodies which would otherwise be unable to retain an atmosphere at all (such as asteroids) could be given a habitable environment. The environment under an artificial worldhouse roof would also likely be more amenable to artificial manipulation.
It has the disadvantage of requiring a great deal of construction and maintenance activity, the cost of which could be ameliorated to some degree through the use of automated manufacturing and repair mechanisms. A worldhouse could also be more susceptible to catastrophic failure in the event of a major breach, though this risk can likely be reduced by compartmentalization and other active safety precautions. Meteor strikes are a particular concern in the absence of any external atmosphere in which they would burn up before reaching the surface.
Small Worldhouses are often referred to as "Domes".
Easier than that.
.5g is still going to screw us up.... except we know even less about the long-term effects of .5g on humans. For all we know, women who get pregnant in .5g will have badly deformed babies.
Ever read Islands In Space?
You can gather up enough metal into a rough chunk, set it rotating, heat it up with a solar mirror, and then wait till it's nice and evenly molten and blow it up like a baloon.
Then you spin it for gravity.
With mirrors and a few glass plugs (none of which require special materials, just silicates and iron ore) you've got plenty of light.
Once you reach a large enough size to overcome the nasty effects of the corrilis effect, it's probably better than any random planet.
Consider... We're built for 1g.
Really, the most efficent use of our resources is to not have planets anymore but to break all of the asteroids and all of the rocky planets into 5-10km bubbles and then put them all in orbit until they cover up the sun completely. Much more efficent than a few pidly little planets. We don't really need those planetary cores to do much of anything.
Gentoo Sucks
So, no, IMNSHO, I think we're much more likely to end up ripping the planets apart (oh the humanity! how unromantic!) to make better use of the matter, than wasting space & energy by living on the limited surface area of a gravity well.
Power to the Peaceful
Why terraform?
Even the most advanced terraforming techniques would not produce an environment as pleasant (for the most part) as Earth's. e.g. You'll have issues of different planet mass resulting in different gravities.
Over the next few decades our understanding and mastery of genetic engeneering will make it possible to modify plants animals and humans to make them better suit the native environment.
e.g. a higher gravity planet could be accompanied by stockier and stronger genetic stock. e.g. different atmospheric compositions could be accompanied by modified respitory systems.
With a xenomorphing approach you could save on shipping out all the heavy terraforming equipment. Instead you can ship out a few kilograms of genetic material and assembly equipment. And grow the passengers on the other end. The lighter mass and simpler nature of the payload would mean it would be require less fuel to power the flight and higher accelerations would be possible meaning that more trips can be made for less cost in less time. That would beat having to ship out humans for multi-generational voyages.
While the search has been limited, your analogy is flawed---there is no place on Earth devoid of life, not in a desert, not in Antartica, not in a hot spring near boiling point of water. There is always life---even if it might be an ancient single-cell organism---and that is the prevailing thought. If there's any life (at least something anything close to the degree on Earth) of Mars, it should be pervasive, like it is on Earth.
Seriously. Ton of nukes at the martian poles. Heats up the planet, vaporizes the CO2 and water in the poles, thickening the atmosphere, and maybe putting enough of both out there to sustain plantlife and start making some o2.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."