Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Is Already Working On Designer Organisms To Terraform Mars
MarkWhittington writes: Space visionaries dream of a time when human beings will not only settle Mars, but will terraform the Red Planet into something more Earth-like, with a breathable atmosphere, running water, and a functioning biosphere. Evidence exists that Mars was more or less Earth-like billions of years ago before the atmosphere leached away into space and the water became frozen under the ground and at the poles. Terraforming Mars is decades away from the beginning and probably centuries away from the end. But DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is already genetically engineering organisms that will help turn the Red Planet blue, according to a story in Motherboard.
That has an effect over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, it is possible that an artificial atmosphere would remain usable to us in human timescales without leaching away
High energy particles from the Sun would be another matter.
Without magnetic fields to prevent them from hitting the surface they would continue to be a threat to us an our electronics
Wherever You Go, There You Are
on Mars would be awesome! Then I reread the headline more closely...
Start with caves and bunkers. Terraform and generate anthropogenic atmosphere. See what happens: if we don't get off this orb, we are destined for extinction.
28,000 workers died to bring you the Panama Canal. What is an acceptable human sacrifice for a whole frigging planet?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
It seems to me that it would be far easier to adapt ourselves to Mars by modifying our genetics than to change the characteristics of an entire planet.
Yes it is the major issue. Which always brings to mind my favorite proposed solution: Mine neodymium from asteroids, use it to construct a massive rare earth magnet ring around Mars, and watch as Mars' solid metal core once again becomes magnetized and creates a planetary magnetic field. Sure, it would be a truly massive project, but it would be easier by orders of magnitude as compared to trying to restart the magnetic field by liquefying the mantle and outer core of Mars. Plus, we wouldn't have to worry restarting Olympus Mons.
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
From a biological perspective, the major problem is that there is no low hanging fruit in terms of biological energy sources on mars, and not enough water for any type of surface colonization with methane and CO2 generating microbes. So you couldn't harvest the limited sunlight on the surface. You'd need to hope tor subsurface water where you would be limited to slow metabolizing extremophiles that eat rock and produce gas. They would not generate enough atmosphere over any kind of reasonable time frame, and then on top of that thestripping effect from the solar wind and lack of magnetic field would negate most of the outgassing that occurred from the microbes. If it could have been done by living microbes, it probably already would have by Martian microbes. If they couldn't do it, we probably can't either.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
If it could have been done by living microbes, it probably already would have by Martian microbes. If they couldn't do it, we probably can't either.
I largely agree with you. The energy would have to come from somewhere else. In the Mars trilogy, they achieve the most early success by deliberate greenhouse gas production. Engineered bacteria have little effect. So even science-fiction agrees with you... and has for a long time.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The surface gravity on Mars is 38% of that on Earth. The lower gravity of Mars requires 2.6 times Earth’s column airmass to obtain 100 kPa pressure at the surface. Mars also lacks a magnetosphere, which poses challenges for mitigating solar radiation and retaining atmosphere. The lack of a magnetosphere is thought to be one reason for Mars's thin atmosphere. Solar-wind-induced ejection of Martian atmospheric atoms has been detected by Mars-orbiting probes. Earth abounds with water because its ionosphere is permeated with a magnetosphere. The hydrogen ions present in its ionosphere move very fast due to their small mass, but they cannot escape to outer space because their trajectories are deflected by the magnetic field. Venus has a dense atmosphere, but only traces of water vapor (20 ppm) because it has no magnetic field. The Martian atmosphere also loses water to space. Earth's ozone layer provides additional protection. Ultraviolet light is blocked before it can dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Because little water vapor rises above the troposphere and the ozone layer is in the upper stratosphere, little water is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Mars presents untold challenges because it's so bloody cold, it's atmosphere is so thin and it's magnetic field is non-existent. We should be FAR more interested in Venus. I'd love to see what would happen if we dumped a canister of extremeophile bacteria into Venus. They could remove the sulfur from the atmosphere in time and actually allow the heat that makes Venus a hell to escape into space. And it would be FAR easier to manipulate Venus into loosing atmosphere than it would be to gain atmosphere on Mars. Venus also has a strong magnetic field like the earth. We'd also have the advantage on Venus of being able to live in the clouds. Normal earth air and earth pressures would float in the Venusian atmosphere. Not only that but if we can learn to slow the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus it would only help us on earth.
We like mars because we can land on it without problems but it's devoid of life for a reason. Venus is far more interesting in my opinion. We have microbes on earth right now that could easily survive on Venus. This isn't true with mars because the UV on mars will kill even microbial life.
That's an interesting point, but it's not necessarily true. We can take bigger risks on a dead world, or even perform actions that poison in one way and improve it in another, and worry about cleaning up the poisoning later. The current world must not go through an intermediate "dead world" state.
The risks can even help us prove concepts for the earth.
Also, the timescale for terraforming Mars is surely much longer than the timescale for improving Earth. It's an interesting idea at least.