Greenhouse effect could make Mars livable

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
But given enough time and enough concerted effort to terraforming, it should be possible to terraform Mars enough to be Human-livable. Pardon the pun, but I'm not holding my breath for a Human-breathable atmosphere on Mars, but a carbon-heavy atmosphere may be a better alternative that'll warm the planet and make plants happy.

It's not that hard to have a human-breathable atmosphere. The only problem is finding all that oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by monolith94
None of this is feasible within our life times of course. And it'll be many lifetimes before such a plan is economically viable.

Again, this is something that can niether be proven nor disproven until we try. And again I disagree.

My question is, if you start a greenhouse effect, how would you stop it? We wouldn't want Mars to become another Venus.

Venus' atmosphere is something like 400 times as dense as Earth's. Not even Earth can become another Venus unless we really, really try. Hell, Earth has been much hotter than it is currently or feared to become so there's no real concern here. Mars, having a much thinner atmosphere, is at about 0% risk of turning into Venus. It's simply too far away from Sol to receive much heat, its gravity isn't strong enough to hold that dense an atmosphere, and there's the lack of a decent magnetosphere to protect from solar wind blowing away said atmosphere.

[The Mad Monk]

The main advantage Mars has, oddly enough, is it's gravity well. People could live there without fear of the degenerative disorders that plague astronauts spending even relatively short times in microgravity.

Of course, that gravity well makes tranport to Earth more difficult, so why complicate matters further with a thick atmosphere to plough through, along with the assortment of storms you get whenever you have a sizable atmosphere?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's not that hard to have a human-breathable atmosphere. The only problem is finding all that oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

Well, isn't the carbon and nitrogen locked up on Mars' surface? The entire South Polar Cap is cardon dioxide right? And with a carbon-heavy atmosphere may come a lot of oxygen-spweing plants and microbes. It may take eons that route to make an breathable oxygen atmosphere, but I would think we'd develope the means to accelerate the process looong before the process could finish on its own.

[The Mad Monk]

I am in favor of terraforming Venus, BTW. That rock is useless until we can scrub it a bit.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The main advantage Mars has, oddly enough, is it's gravity well. People could live there without fear of the degenerative disorders that plague astronauts spending even relatively short times in microgravity.

Of course, that gravity well makes tranport to Earth more difficult, so why complicate matters further with a thick atmosphere to plough through, along with the assortment of storms you get whenever you have a sizable atmosphere?

Given this Administration's obsession with unmanned robtic drones for the military (not a bad thing, I do support such research), is it not reasonable to assume that either the government or private sector will develope the means to robotically mine out there or even just bring the rocks closer to Earth/Luna or Mars to make them easier to mine manually?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Well, isn't the carbon and nitrogen locked up on Mars' surface? The entire South Polar Cap is cardon dioxide right?

Not ice?

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
And with a carbon-heavy atmosphere may come a lot of oxygen-spweing plants and microbes. It may take eons that route to make an breathable oxygen atmosphere, but I would think we'd develope the means to accelerate the process looong before the process could finish on its own.

We could drop lots of algae if there's liquid water.

[Dis]

mining.

why do people always bring up mining mars? What company would choose to mine mars when it's far cheaper to mine Earth?

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I am in favor of terraforming Venus, BTW. That rock is useless until we can scrub it a bit.

We are in partial agreement. The planet is far hotter than anything we have the ability to protect ourselves or unmanned scientific insturments against for any reasonable amount of time. Our sh*t just melts a few hours after landing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Given this Administration's obsession with unmanned robtic drones for the military (not a bad thing, I do support such research), is it not reasonable to assume that either the government or private sector will develope the means to robotically mine out there or even just bring the rocks closer to Earth/Luna or Mars to make them easier to mine manually?

There's nothing to mine on Mars that we don't have large quantities on earth, and it's much more cost efficient to do it here. So the best thing to do is to just to have pretty flowers and fluffy bunnies on it.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Not ice?



We could drop lots of algae if there's liquid water.

One of the caps is believed to mostly be water ice, the other is believed to mostly be dry (carbon) ice.

And again, algae is a drastic form of terraforming. We have to satisfactorally determine if native Martin life has existed or currently does before we deliberately introduce foreign biological matter. Landing probes and ourselves, while deliberate, is an unavoidable contamination if we wish to go to the planet to study and exploit it.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Dissident
mining.

why do people always bring up mining mars? What company would choose to mine mars when it's far cheaper to mine Earth?

It's like outsourcing work to Mexico or Southeast Asia: Loose environmental laws. Mars has none currently. Although the Outer Space Treaty signed a few decades ago prohibits making claims of territory, I doubt it will be enforced in current form once we start getting the means to ignore it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
And again, algae is a drastic form of terraforming. We have to satisfactorally determine if native Martin life has existed or currently does before we deliberately introduce foreign biological matter.

If there are any native lifeforms, which is a highly unlikely event, they won't survive any form of terraforming.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
It's like outsourcing work to Mexico or Southeast Asia: Loose environmental laws. Mars has none currently. Although the Outer Space Treaty signed a few decades ago prohibits making claims of territory, I doubt it will be enforced in current form once we start getting the means to ignore it.

The energy cost is huge.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There's nothing to mine on Mars that we don't have large quantities on earth, and it's much more cost efficient to do it here. So the best thing to do is to just to have pretty flowers and fluffy bunnies on it.

As I said with Diss' post, the lack of environmental laws will be a strong draw for venturous companies. I can't imagine small companies or private individuals leaving this planet in some 21st Century "Gold Rush" but can easily see Halliburton and other giganormous companies making industrial alliances and such to try to exploit virgin resources.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


There's nothing to mine on Mars that we don't have large quantities on earth, and it's much more cost efficient to do it here. So the best thing to do is to just to have pretty flowers and fluffy bunnies on it.

Only if everything we're mining on Mars is destined for Earth's surface. Once you commit to developing off-world, even Earth orbit, you pay a hell of a premium on everything we send through our atmosphere and gravity well.

Which reminds me...

Moon first, then Mars!

[Dis]

under a republican goverment we have loose environmental laws anyways. You live in Nevada, you know our state is born on mining and mining is still a major industry here. Miners treat our state as if it's a unhospitable planet such as mars as it is.

Until we start running out of metals (unlikely if we recycle), I don't see the need to mine other planets, moons, or asteroids.

How about we take care of the planet we are on instead of ****ing up another planet such as Mars.

[DRoseDARs]

Nay, Mars AND Luna at the same time! No good reason we can't try both.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Only if everything we're mining on Mars is destined for Earth's surface. Once you commit to developing off-world, even Earth orbit, you pay a hell of a premium on everything we send through our atmosphere and gravity well.

You have to consider that the total energy cost. Yeah, earth's got this huge gravity well, but you need to taken into account of distance. Also all the equipment, personnel, etc. had to be sent to Mars in the first place.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


We are in partial agreement. The planet is far hotter than anything we have the ability to protect ourselves or unmanned scientific insturments against for any reasonable amount of time. Our sh*t just melts a few hours after landing.

My fantasy on this topic involves engineering speciallized bacteria from undersea sulfer vents that convert CO2, sulfuric acid, and other parts of Venus' atmosphere into relatively inert sulfates and carbonates. The bugs would be seeded into the atmosphere, multiply rapidly, convert the atmosphere in short order, and conveniently die off as as pressure, temperature and chemistry go bad on them.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You have to consider that the total energy cost. Yeah, earth's got this huge gravity well, but you need to taken into account of distance. Also all the equipment, personnel, etc. had to be sent to Mars in the first place.

Distance matters little, if you have time.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Dissident
under a republican goverment we have loose environmental laws anyways. You live in Nevada, you know our state is born on mining and mining is still a major industry here. Miners treat our state as if it's a unhospitable planet such as mars as it is.

Until we start running out of metals (unlikely if we recycle), I don't see the need to mine other planets, moons, or asteroids.

How about we take care of the planet we are on instead of ****ing up another planet such as Mars.

As I said to TMM earlier, I'm wary of mining Mars, but not opposed to it. The likely course of events is that we'll develope the means to get to other bodies (probably robotically first, then Humans) and these means will become commercially available shortly thereafter. Large corporations will try to get to the virgin resources faster than the international community can develope laws and treaties to dictate interplanetary mining, much less enforce them. Environmental concerns for Mars will likely go ignored and unlegislated/unregulated for at least 15-20 years after the first mining operation is set up. Also, given the environmental concerns here on Earth, as we develope the means to exploit resources beyond Earth there may be a paradigm shift in how we view Earth-based industry and space-based industry be be viewed as a favorable alternative, despite its early expense.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
My fantasy on this topic involves engineering speciallized bacteria from undersea sulfer vents that convert CO2, sulfuric acid, and other parts of Venus' atmosphere into relatively inert sulfates and carbonates.

Um, not even those bacteria could survive Venus. The heat simply toasts them.

[The Mad Monk]

Colonizing space is not a matter of economics to me, it is a matter of survival. Evolution has clearly demonstrated that the more a species expands, whether geographically, or in terms of habitat or food source, the longer it survives in this universe.

We thrive because we have managed to exploit nearly every crack and crevice this planet has to offer. We are immune to most catastrophes this world has to offer, because there is little here now that could hit every region, and every food supply.

Still, there are still threats out there, that can kill us off on a planetary scale.

The only real long-term countermeasure for this is the same one that has served us so well for so long.

Expand into new territories, or as in this case, new worlds.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Um, not even those bacteria could survive Venus. The heat simply toasts them.

"Engineering".

"Fantasy".

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


My fantasy on this topic involves engineering speciallized bacteria from undersea sulfer vents that convert CO2, sulfuric acid, and other parts of Venus' atmosphere into relatively inert sulfates and carbonates. The bugs would be seeded into the atmosphere, multiply rapidly, convert the atmosphere in short order, and conveniently die off as as pressure, temperature and chemistry go bad on them.

Even if they could be GM'd to survive the Hellish conditions on the Vesuvian surface, that process would likely take thousands of years. Constructing and placing in orbit giant solar shades would cut that time down a great deal. Ice-asteroid bombing may help too.

But again, my concerns about native life creep in. I seriously doubt there is or ever has been life on Venus, but that assumes our type of life is all that can develope. Cooling the planet is really the only way we can set foot (robotic or booted) on the planet to reaserch it, but this may inadvertantly kill native life. But again, I doubt Venus has had any of its own.

[The Mad Monk]

I has considered using balloons that would float at a "sweet spot" in temperature and pressure, and would serve as a substrate for the bacteria. Of course, this would require a lot more time and work than simple seeding.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Colonizing space is not a matter of economics to me, it is a matter of survival. Evolution has clearly demonstrated that the more a species expands, whether geographically, or in terms of habitat or food source, the longer it survives in this universe.

We thrive because we have managed to exploit nearly every crack and crevice this planet has to offer. We are immune to most catastrophes this world has to offer, because there is little here now that could hit every region, and every food supply.

Still, there are still threats out there, that can kill us off on a planetary scale.

The only real long-term countermeasure for this is the same one that has served us so well for so long.

Expand into new territories, or as in this case, new worlds.

Thank you. I keep forgetting to make this point, despite it being the biggest, most important point thing for me in this whole field of discussion.

[Dis]

there are organisms that can withstand high heat. These have been found deep down in the earth and near vents in the ocean. Though I'm not sure if they can withstand Venus type heat.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I has considered using balloons that would float at a "sweet spot" in temperature and pressure, and would serve as a substrate for the bacteria. Of course, this would require a lot more time and work than simple seeding.

If a Soviet probe, made of metal that survived reentry, melts a few hour after it lands on Venus' surface, what are the chances of a balloon floating anywhere for any length of time in the planet's atmosphere?