Slashdot Mirror


Terraforming Might Not Work on Mars, New Research Says (discovermagazine.com)

Mars might not have the right ingredients to terraform into our planetary home away from home -- even with the recent discovery of liquid water buried near its south pole. From a report: Research published Monday in Nature Astronomy puts a kibosh on the idea of terraforming Mars. At the heart of the study is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is abundant on Mars -- its thin atmosphere is made of the stuff, and the white stuff we often see on the surface is dry ice, not snow. CO2 is even trapped in the rocks and soil. That abundance has long fueled visions of a fantasy future where all that trapped carbon dioxide is released, creating a thicker atmosphere that warms the planet. SpaceX founder Elon Musk has even proposed nuking Mars to make this happen.

But in this new study, veteran Mars expert Bruce Jakosky of the University of Colorado Boulder and Christopher S. Edwards of Northern Arizona University, surveyed how much carbon dioxide is available for terraforming the Red Planet. They combined Martian CO2 observations from various missions -- NASA's MAVEN atmospheric probe, the European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter, as well as NASA's Odyssey and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The results throw shade on the dreams of futurists.

35 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. They think small by spaceman375 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A few cometary impacts would change their numbers right quick. Equilibrium may be awhile, but still...

    --
    On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    1. Re: They think small by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You probably need to merge Mars and Io or some other sizable planet/moon to get the right conditions. Maybe move Venus to the Mars orbit and create a bi-planetary system like Terra/Luna.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re: They think small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah great idea, just "move Venus into Mars orbit" - you fucking space-genius.

    3. Re: They think small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are many ways not to move Venus into a binary status with Mars. By a generous estimate, 10 of those ways provide some risk to earth. The math to avoid a risk with moving Venus is much easier than the engineering to move a planet in the first place.

    4. Re: They think small by MiniMike · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe move Venus to the Mars orbit and create a bi-planetary system like Terra/Luna.

      If we had that level of technology, it would make more sense to move them to Earth orbit (in opposition to Earth, of course) and make a second Earth/Moon pair. A quick calculation shows that if we leave a safety margin of 10x the Moons orbit around each pair, we could fit 18 Earth/Moon pairs in the current Earth orbit. Jupiter is 318 times the mass of Earth and could provide what's needed (again, assuming sufficient technology). Could probably adjust the size/orbit of the new moons, or do something crazy like Earth/Earth pairs to fit more in, but that would probably mess with tides and make them less habitable. With the previously mentioned technology we could also fix the effects of these changes on the remaining plants.

      Dibs on designing the Fjords...

    5. Re: They think small by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Let me axe you a question: what makes you think there will be space robots in the next century and they will be able to move planets? I am fascinated that you guys think all this is going to happen somehow. Is this something that people think because they hear "you can do anything" from their parents?

    6. Re: They think small by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      A quick calculation shows that if we leave a safety margin of 10x the Moons orbit around each pair, we could fit 18 Earth/Moon pairs in the current Earth orbit.

      It doesn't quite work like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re: They think small by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Not really, on both accounts. We already have the basic capacity to start terraforming Mars. The rest would be a learn as we go process. Now whether it would worth terraforming Mars, to me, is another question.

      As for moving Venus, or any planet, that two is not beyond our current capacity. Granted its a daunting process but given time we could do it. Here is something to think about. We have already altered the orbits of every major body in the solar system with the possible exception of the sun.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    8. Re: They think small by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I wonder how difficult of a exerciser this would be to set up in Universal Sandbox.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    9. Re: They think small by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Truth, we are already moving planets. I'll let you figure out how.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    10. Re: They think small by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      But we are moving planets. Each time we swing a probe around a planet we are changing it's orbit, but granted its not enough to really matter. But its still there.

      But that is the basic process in which we can move planets. We just have to scale it up. Alter the orbit of asteroids, place them in the right orbit and have them transfer energy required from one body to another. Give enough of them and enough time it can be done.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    11. Re: They think small by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Not that easy. I was able to move venus into a orbit closer to earth but the orbit was far from stable. It's amazing how balanced the solar system is. I just added a few km/per second to venus' orbital speed, and it would sent venus ether spiraling into the sun or out of the solar system

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  2. Welp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of nuking Mars, send CO2 rich asteroids at it to serve as both the nuke and the additional nutrient.
    The simple stupid solutions are sometimes the best solutions. If it doesn't work it doesn't change a thing, if it works it changes a lot.

    1. Re: Welp by guruevi · · Score: 2

      I don't think you understand how much CO2 but also Oxygen and Nitrogen is necessary to make Mars remotely resemble earth. Mars' atmosphere is being continuously stripped by solar wind too due to lack of magnetic fields.

      Terraforming Mars is impossible.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Welp by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I like this. One thing we can say from our history is we are damn good at bashing rocks together.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    3. Re:Welp by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      I've always thought Venus was a better choice than Mars. It has the one thing that Mars will never have, mass. An from some of the radar data we got back Magellan it probably still has a molten core. Scrubbing the atmosphere, cracking the crust to start plate tectonics, and adding water to create oceans are all daunting tasks but are doable. Even adding a moon to stabilize the planet can be done.

      The biggest issue would be altering the rotation of the planet. Which also can be done, look up a dyson motor.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re:Welp by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      There are lots of unknowns. I did really simplify the process. One of the theories that I'm thinking about here is that plate tectonics on Venus is locked in place because of a lack of lubrication. There is a theory that water under the plates serves as a lubricant to keep the plates from locking in place like they have on venus.

      One of the items that points to this is that surface of venus appears to be young. The theory is every few million years the entire surface of venus cracks open along plate boundaries allowing for the molten materials under the crust to "resurface" the whole planet. It's kind of far out out there but sounds possible..

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
  3. Well, yeah. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mars doesn't have enough mass and magnetic spin to maintain an atmosphere. That's kind of always going to have anything you generate torn away by solar winds.

    You'd have to do something absurd like send a Jovian moon into it, then wait for all that to cool down to get enough mass to start making a long-term environment on it. There's not even enough floating ice/rocks in our system to make it work without something like that.

    Mars is not really a backup for earth, at least not if you don't have a large fraction of a million years to get it to that point. If you think that enough technology can get you there quicker - then cool, use that on Earth. There's no almost scenario where it would be easier to fix Mars than fix Earth.

    Heck, it would be far easier to fix life to not need Earth than make Mars support our life as-is.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Well, yeah. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet Titan, which is smaller than Mars, manages to hold onto an atmosphere thicker than Earth's.

    2. Re:Well, yeah. by Punchcardz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Titan gets to poach off the magnetosphere of a little thing called Saturn. Mars has enough gravity to hold on to some atmosphere. Without a magnetophere, much of it gets stripped away by the solar wind. It's absence also leads to really high radiation exposure. Mars is a shitty place to live, and has fundamental attributes that will continue to make it a shitty place to live. If you have self-sufficient, hermetically sealed habs for a Mars settlement, you are much better off sticking them in Barstow CA. At least then you can still get Amazon Prime.

    3. Re:Well, yeah. by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      We? We won't be humans in a few million years, let alone billion? It's even more remote from us than ancient fish saying they need to get out of the sea and onto land.

  4. CO2 only by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    So this study looks primarily at CO2 naturally available for terraforming. But there are a lot of things we can synthesize which are even more powerful greenhouse gases. Sulfur hexafluoride is a fun example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride with an effective warming potential a little over 20,000 times that of CO2. It is also essentially non-toxic (aside from its annoying density in large quantities). Sulfur hexalfuoride isn't the only such example, so it is still very plausible that we could terraform Mars. What this does mean though is that a simple straight high CO2 atmosphere is very likely going to be insufficient unless there are major undiscovered reserves of CO2 somewhere on Mars (which right now seems unlikely).

    1. Re:CO2 only by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Hmm? No, not at all. It does mean that you can't do silly things like having an atmosphere that is just SF6 and O2. That would be very good from a keeping things warm perspective but wouldn't work from a breathing perspective. But if one had a small percentage that was SF6 (under 1 or 2%) with a careful mixture, it wouldn't be an issue. The other thing to realize is that it is very likely though the plausible short-term situations where we terraform Mars are much closer to "go outside with a breathing unit like a scuba system" rather than "wear a spacesuit." The time scale and tech level needed to make Mars to the point where humans could walk around completely unaided is much more advanced.

  5. Re:space nutters are nuts by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're not even done terraforming Terra. But we're working on it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. I thought it was solar wind+no magnetic field by shoor · · Score: 2

    Somewhere I read that Mars lost its atmosphere because it didn't have a magnetic field to keep the solar wind from blasting its atmosphere away, and, if we tried to build up an atmosphere again, the same thing would happen.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  7. Re:Make it just thick enough... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... for allowing atmospheric breaking for incoming ships replenishing underground bases. Wink!

    It already is thick enough for aerobraking, and it has already been done.

  8. Terraforming: No, Habitable: Yes by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    There's more than enough water and air to set up systems to live there.

    You just won't get a Princess of Barsoom situation.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Terraforming: No, Habitable: Yes by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      No there isn't. How are you going to get to the water? Dig for it? Give me a break. The radiation would kill you in a week.

      Robots don't care about your silly problems digging for 404error reboot omg where am I

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  9. Venus has always been a better target by FeelGood314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At the correct altitude in the Venusian atmosphere you can have earth like temperature and pressure. You don't need 5m of concrete to protect you from the solar winds and you have all the ingredients to build everything you want there. You just can't stand on the surface today. If your colony is willing to float in huge balloons though then things are much much easier than Mars.

    1. Re:Venus has always been a better target by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      Venus has many of the components needed but less of the adventure that Mars offers. As a compromise, I suggest harvesting, cooling and shooting lots of CO2 from Venus to Mars. Ideally you would want to automate this process. At the same time you need to start collecting all the iron from the Martian surface to eventually put back in the core. The core may need help getting started but once there is a CO2 atmosphere in place, it should feedback more heat, fully melt and start generating a magnetic field again.

      Complaining that it will take too long wont get it done any faster. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Venus has always been a better target by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Like always, never a clue. It is easy to design a system that would float up high in the atmosphere, avoiding the pressures and temps. In fact, USSR already did. with more to come.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:space nutters are nuts by Dread_ed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the only way to terraform. At least the first time. We need *experience*. No plan will survive first contact with the environment so why have one?

    I suggest throwing everything we can think of at the ol' red dustball and see what sticks. We need a foundation of microorganisms, the basic energy economy, over which we can layer and integrate successively higher life forms until we reach "food production." Once we have some little guys processing stuff and some respiration going on we can do some dart tossing with selected introductions and see if any of our predictions are accurate.

    In essence all we are trying to do is re-create an evolution story on another planet, albeit with already evolved organisms. Think of all the organisms on this planet as our toolbox. With them we can recapitulate (with some modifications due to the differences in the planets) the story of our own Earth's journey.

    I believe in panspermia. It's not an origin story. It's a policy.

    --
    When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  12. Re:space nutters are nuts by racermd · · Score: 2

    Have we forgotten that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field to shield the solar winds from stripping away the atmosphere that's already there? Trying to terraform it to the point of having a stable atmosphere is a fools errand. It'll be like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.

    --
    My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
  13. Re:A really hard problem by dryeo · · Score: 2

    Balloons. Our atmosphere is a lifting gas on Venus and at the right altitude, the temperature is ideal (about 20C) along with the air pressure. You have enough atmosphere above you that radiation wouldn't be a problem and even the gravity is probably close enough.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism