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
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.
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.
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.