Scientist Calls Mars a Terraforming Target
Raver32 writes "Mars will be transformed into a shirt-sleeve, habitable world for humanity before century's end, made livable by thawing out the coldish climes of the red planet and altering its now carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere.
How best to carry out a fast-paced, decade by decade planetary face lift of Mars — a technique called "terraforming" — has been outlined by Lowell Wood, a noted physicist and recent retiree of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a long-time Visiting Fellow of the Hoover Institution.
Lowell presented his eye-opening Mars manifesto at Flight School, held here June 20-22 at the Aspen Institute, laying out a scientific plan to "experiment on a planet we're not living on.""
First, Mars does not have a magnetosphere. This helps fend off the worst of the cosmic radiation here on Earth. What does he propose to replace it? The article is light on the details. Second, isn't the understanding still that Mars has insufficient gravity to preserve its atmosphere and so the solar wind strips the atoms and molecules right off the top, thus explaining the low pressure we see today? How do you counter that?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Mars will NEVER be habitable.
We'd have to find a way to get its dead core molten and spinning again. Otherwise solar radiation will just flay off any atmosphere we try to put there.
Maybe we could live on Mars in domes or sealed caves but I doubt we'll ever be walking about in the open on its surface.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I believe the real problem isn't the climate, or the high carbon dioxide atmosphere; the real problem is that Mars's atmosphere is very low density. The air pressure in Mars (less than 1% of that on Earth according to Wikipedia) won't be sufficient for us earthlings to breathe comfortably if at all.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
I'm only a lay-man, and I only know what I read in textbooks. If any of this is wrong, please correct me.
Some problems with this whole scheme.
1) Rich in carbon-dioxide, but only relatively. The atmosphere is so thin that even if the CO2 were converted to a more human-friendly mix, it's still too thin, and too cold.
2) The atmosphere can't be enriched with more material because Mars can't hold it. Too gravity, and not a strong enough magnetosphere (which is how Venus holds it atmosphere).
3) No internal dynamo. Mars has a cold core, leading the aforementioned problems.
The point behind Biosphere was to create a naturally self-sustaining system, so they weren't supposed to use CO2 scrubbers or any such similar technology. Additionally, it was determined that the concrete foundations were binding CO2 as they cured (concrete cures for years and years), causing still more problems.
Blah blah blah. It was a total screwup, not just in management, but in pure conception. They needed to start with a working system and then figure out how to make it self sufficient, instead of starting with a system that they thought would work, and trying to live in it indefinitely. Does anyone really think we'd start off with a system that needed no outside inputs? It's not realistic. Basically the only thing they proved is that they didn't do very well at making a self-sustaining system.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.