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."

Comments

Asteroids/Comets - Terraforming

[l810c]

I don't really see how you can truly Terraform Asteroids and Comets.

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.

Re:Asteroids/Comets - Terraforming

[js7a]

Actually, you need to hollow out the walls, and then place an insulated airtight container inside (a thermos) so that the heat stays away from the asteroid.

And plenty of reading material and lots of things to do.

Re:Asteroids/Comets - Terraforming

[Rei]

Besides, it's a lot easier to picture living on Mars. The landscape has such an Earthlike feel to it. It's easy to picture a city off in the distance haze, sagebrush growing scattered across the landscape, etc.

Even if you can't get an O2 atmosphere, just increasing the atmospheric density to a sizable portion of our own would be a huge benefit. You wouldn't need pressure suits (only rebreathers and, depending on temperature and atmospheric composition, possibly unpressurized skin-protecting layers). The atmosphere would do a good job shielding you from radiation, the climate would be more moderate, and if you had to protect crops from the atmosphere still, the greenhouses would be much lighter if you didn't have to have them pressurized.

There comes a time..

[ProfaneBaby]

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.

Re:There comes a time..

[WolfWithoutAClause]

That strikes me as a bit hasty. I mean, so it's the closest planet. And? I mean how do you know that's the best place to live? Wouldn't an asteroid where you have easy access to other asteroids, lots of solar power, lots of volatiles for rocket fuel and lots of materials you can smelt be better?

Or a moon of Jupiter? Or for that matter Phobos or Deimos? (Which incidentally give access to Mars surface if you really want to.)

I mean, the surface pressure of Mars is 0.6% of an earth atmosphere. By any normal standards it's really practically a vacuum; the living accomodations need to be basically the same as a space vehicle. There's nothing known to be special about Mars, no energy sources (although you can certainly take nuclear power with you), and it's difficult to trade stuff with Earth or other places because of its moderately high gravity. So people there are likely to be fairly poor in the very long term IMHO. It seems a very expensive place to live.

But I'm personally not opposed to it, it just seems to be a purely emotional thing about it being nearby.

Re:There comes a time..

[susano_otter]

Here's what I want to know: How do you work with raw rock, when there's no gravity?

You can't use conveyor belts. You can't brace your heavy equipment against the ground for stability and leverage.

Your rubble doesn't settle into neat piles near your work area, for easy disposal or use in some other project.

Every time you act on the work surface, your tools are pushed back into the outer darkness.

And thanks to the vacuum, you can't even use suction or other airflow techniques to manage your rubble.

Space industry, at the very least, will require huge amounts of reaction mass; also sturdier, bulkier, more complex machinery (think lids for all your power-shovel buckets, and enclosures for all your three-dimensional conveyor gears)--machinery that must first be manufactured on Earth, and then lifted into space.

Forget about terraforming! I want to know how we're supposed to work the asteroids!

==========
Actually, I have an idea: nanotechnology. Say, a canister of tiny Von Neumann machines, which "disassemble" the asteroid, lock away its valuable raw materials in the body-structures of their newborn brothers, and when they're done, combine into one big ball and launch themselves at some orbital factory. At the factory, they could march happily into the new structures the asteroid was mined to build.

Space Settlement Rather Than Terraforming

[Baldrson]

Reading about a debate between terraformers and "don't touch that" Luddites is sort of like watching "Democrats" and "Republicans" on CSPAN: They're setting the range of opinion to exclude the founders of their institution.

Ad Astra was originally a space settlement magazine when the L5 Society merged with the National Space Society on condition that the emphasis on space settlement remain its ultimate priority.

What is the difference between a space settlement and a terraformed planet, you might ask?

The fact that you need to ask is evidence that the foundation of the National Space Society was long ago abrogated for more "fashionable" pursuits, such as those promoted by hucksters like Zubrin.

One of the better answers to that question is in Mike Combs' Space Settlement FAQ

Since the Ad Astrans have had the unmitigated chutzpah to quote the originator of the space settlement idea without talking about actual space settlement -- pretending the idea simply doesn't exist, I'm going to provide an appropriate rebuttal: The entirety of Mr. Combs' FAQ.

What is space settlement?

Space settlement is the concept of colonizing space by using extraterrestrial resources to construct artificial, closed-ecology habitats in orbit.

What is a space habitat?

A space habitat would be a pressurized sphere, cylinder, or torus (donut shape), rotating on its axis so that centrifugal force serves as an artificial gravity. The interior is landscaped with soil, water, and vegetation. Sunlight would be gathered by mirrors and reflected into the interior of the habitat through windows. The goal is to create as Earth-like an environment as possible.

How is space settlement different from any of the other space colonization proposals?

Most thinking regarding human expansion into space has focused on the settling of the surfaces of other planets, sometimes after modifying their environments to make them more Earth-like (called terraforming). The space settlement concept maintains that planets are not the most ideal location for human colonies beyond the Earth.

Aren't we going to terraform Mars or Venus?

Terraforming is a long-term project requiring technology significantly advanced over what we have today. Even terraforming advocates admit it would take a minimum of 200 years to modify Mars to the stage where even simple anaerobic microorganisms and algae can survive. [Ref: Terraforming: Engineering Planetary Environments, Martyn J. Fogg, SAE Press 1995.] Space habitats, on the other hand, can be built with today's technology, and would be homes in space which people initiating the program could move into within their lifetimes.

Interstellar travel may someday become possible, but we have no guarantee that Earth-like planets will be as plentiful in the Milky Way galaxy as they have been in Hollywood, CA.

What advantages would orbital settlements have over a colony built on another planet?

1. Access to 24-hour-a-day sunlight. This makes solar power a consistent, economical energy source. Photovoltaic panels can convert sunlight into electrical current, and solar mirrors can concentrate it for process heat in industrial operations (such as the smelting of ore). A space-based solar concentrator the size of a football field (which could still weigh less than a car) could provide process heat equivalent to the burning of 1 million barrels of oil over 30 years.
   
   Sunlight also drives the life-support system of the habitat, so the day/night cycle can be set to whatever is convenient. Compare this to the moon, where there is 14 days of continuous daylight, and then a 14-day-long night. Here, some alternate energy source would probably have to be used half the time.
2. Access to zero gravity. Th

But first...

[DroopyStonx]

Let's work on immortality.

I'd hate to move to an asteroid outside of earth's orbit and die from this stupid cellular aging when I could've been floating above Uranus staring at that big red spot.

Wait a minute...

I always felt...

[cmowire]

... 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.

Eros-ward Ho!

[rufusdufus]

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.

Saganites, von Braunians, and O'Neillians

[FleaPlus]

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.

Terraforming. How quaint.

[Saeger]

Terraforming a planet only makes sense if you still think that technology is advancing linearly along traditional SF lines, instead of exponentially, and only if you assume that us humans will still choose to be stuck in our inefficient, fragile biological form for a period longer than the centuries it takes to terraform a planet in the first place.

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.

Re:Terraforming. How quaint.

[ansible]

Indeed. It is this discussion of topics like terraforming that disapoint me most about people's ability to think about the future, and understand trends in technology.

Why do we talk about terraforming? To provide a room-temperature environment (air, pressure, water, gravity) to accommodate us meat bags.

But what if we were made of tougher materials? So we don't need to breath O2 at STP. So we don't need gravity to walk around on surfaces. So we are resistant to radiation. So that outer space becomes our natural environment.

Is it easier to change a planet so that it supports Earth-based meat bags? Or change ourselves to accommodate the environment?

I've seen the future, and it isn't Star Trek.

Re:Humans are damned expensive, aren't they?

[Rob Riggs]

I'd much sooner see this R&D money go towards solving the geopolitical and socioeconomic problems that plague us already

Trust me -- terraforming any of the planets in our solar system is going to be cheaper than that.

Why terraform?

[rimu guy]

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.