Should Mars be Terraformed?

[South killer]

I don't think mankind should expand to space until it solves all the problems here at earth (poverty, starvation, pollution, etc.). After we solve those problems, then we should move on to space.

[chequita guevara]

In other words, we should never move into space. We should keep all of humanity's eggs in one basket and hope we never miss the planet killer asteroid that takes out Earth.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than Earth's, and it's closer to the Sun, so it's more likely to get blown away. Venus is also slightly smaller than Earth. Definately the mass of a planet has a lot of say in how much of an atmosphere a planet has, but it's clear that gravity alone isn't the whole o the equation.

Venus' atmosphere is composed of heavier gases, like sulfer compounds, many of which wouldn't be gasified if the surface and atmospheric temperatures weren't so high. I believe that its closer proximity to the sun allowed the heavier compounds to be formed and gasified, trapping heat, which led to even heavier compounds being liberated into the atmosphere, and so on until an equilibrium was reached. The thickness of the atmosphere then would be a factor of the planet's size and its surface and atmospheric temperatures. I don't see how closeness to the sun would cause atmospheric gas to be blown away. It might cause lighter gases to literally diffuse away?

[Willem]

Originally posted by South killer
I don't think mankind should expand to space until it solves all the problems here at earth (poverty, starvation, pollution, etc.). After we solve those problems, then we should move on to space.

And how do we know that the knowledge we gain by moving out into space might not present a solution to some of the problems we face here at home? I already mentioned Helium-3 and it's possibility for use in fusion reactors. If we figure out how to make fusion work, and how to get the fuel required, it could provide us with an abundant and clean source of energy.

Statements like yours are just like the ones made when people used to say that man will never fly, so why bother trying. We just might learn something we never even concieved of before that will transform our society forever, and for the benefit of all humanity.

[Lord Merciless]

Magnetic field has no effect on gamma rays.

[South killer]

And how do we know that the knowledge we gain by moving out into space might not present a solution to some of the problems we face here at home? I already mentioned Helium-3 and it's possibility for use in fusion reactors. If we figure out how to make fusion work, and how to get the fuel required, it could provide us with an abundant and clean source of energy.

Statements like yours are just like the ones made when people used to say that man will never fly, so why bother trying. We just might learn something we never even concieved of before that will transform our society forever, and for the benefit of all humanity.

The solution to this is very simple: igualitarian distribution of the goods for all.
Sorry but i think it's dumb (or sellfish) for mankind to spend millions and millions of dollars in space programs while a third of the people on earth are starving.

[Willem]

Originally posted by South killer


The solution to this is very simple: igualitarian distribution of the goods for all.
Sorry but i think it's dumb (or sellfish) for mankind to spend millions and millions of dollars in space programs while a third of the people on earth are starving.

If it wasn't for the space program, you probably wouldn't be communicating with people from around the world today. It's played a major role in the development of computer technology and will transform our world in ways we can't even imagine yet today.

How much will the Internet help people in remote and impoverished areas when they'll be able to access information on health care, birth control, crop management, animal husbandry etc, etc, simply by logging on to a computer somewhere. And it's only been around for ten years now!

Just imagine how things will change in 20, 30, 40 years when people all over the world start gaining access to the huge store of information that the Internet provides. And that's just one thing that the space program has helped us develop, there's all sorts of other things as well. Another is fuel cell technology, a potentially clean way of operating our cars and trucks.

Any money we spend on space research will come back to us ten-fold in the future.

[Az]

The solution to this is very simple: igualitarian distribution of the goods for all.
Sorry but i think it's dumb (or sellfish) for mankind to spend millions and millions of dollars in space programs while a third of the people on earth are starving.

I am fully willing to sacrifice a third of mankind, including my own family, and myself, to ensure a continuous presense of humanity in the universe.

But that's not how it really works, so that's just crap.

[Flandrien]

We have yet to put a first man on Mars, so I think it is WAY premature to even think about terraforming.

Since the cold war has ended, space programs are no longer a priority. Just look at how many visits we made to the moon after the Apollo program.

[JohnT]

I think we should, and it should be as capitalistic as possible.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flandrien
We have yet to put a first man on Mars, so I think it is WAY premature to even think about terraforming.

Yeah well, it never hurts to have a dream. Maybe if people start talking about it, the will to do it might actually materialize.

[JohnT]

The solution to this is very simple: igualitarian distribution of the goods for all.
Sorry but i think it's dumb (or sellfish) for mankind to spend millions and millions of dollars in space programs while a third of the people on earth are starving.

A third of the people on Earth are starving? UN puts it at 19%. What percentage do you think it was, say, when Jesus walked the Earth?

I also found this in my search for the above report. The following was from a UN report on population (I lost the URL) that was published 3 years after the above article.

The study reports that the most recent UN assessment of global population trends indicates a drastic slowdown in world population growth. The 2010 population level of 7.2 billion people projected in 1995, for example, was reset by the UN in 1998 at 6.8 million, or about 400 million fewer people. This recalibration in population level is due in part to changes in the world population growth rate, which has fallen from 2.1 percent per year in the later half of the 1960's to 1.3 percent in the late 1990's. This growth rate is predicted to continue dropping over the next three decades, reaching 0.7 percent by 2030. By 2050 the global population growth rate is expected to have dropped as low as 0.3 percent.

Day-um. .3%?

[Sava]

.3% is a lot... think if .3% of the US died from a terrorist attack. 900,000... that's a lot of people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Magnetic field has no effect on gamma rays.

Yes, I mispoke. It does have an effect on ions from the sun.

I believe any life that is not shielded from these will be killed in time. Not so? The planning for the spaceship to Mars includes a magnetic field generator to shield the ship. Ditto any bases on Mars. So, I don't understand how we can even contemplate terraforming until we understand how to restart the magnetic core. It may not be possible.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
.3% is a lot... think if .3% of the US died from a terrorist attack. 900,000... that's a lot of people.

The point is, we have a better handle on the population problem than at any time in modern history - we know where it's going, and it's slowing down. I can't look it up right now, but I'm pretty sure that UN moderate projections for population growth put the globe capping around 10 billion in 2050.