Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Terraform Mars Using Oasis Greenhouses

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the or-bust dept.

Space 70

An anonymous reader writes "The Director of the Mex-Areohab project, Omar Diaz, is interviewed today on the feasibility of modifying the Martian climate and terraforming with mini-greenhouses. At higher than 5,000 meters above sea level, on the volcano Pico de Orizaba, the Mexican model can be compared to many oases in the desert and contrasts with industrial-scale terraforming by Zubrin and McKay, among others, who use fluorocarbons, orbital mirrors, polar melting and pollution machines. One planet's pollution is another planet's rain machine, but the thrust of the interview seems to maintain that micro-terraforming is just faster and more efficient."

cancel ×

70 comments

Mars? First things first! (4, Funny)

LeninZhiv (464864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529349)

Before anyone writes a cheque for this plan, I say they should have to terraform the moon first as a proof of concept.

Re:Mars? First things first! (4, Insightful)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529412)

The moon would be orders of magnitude more difficult than mars for some basic reasons.

You need to have something to work with before you can start terraforming. The moon has a lot of rock. So does Mars, but Mars has different kinds of rock, and it also has ice and CO2.

A planetoid needs a reasonable amount of gravity to retain a gaseous atmosphere before it bleeds off into space. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, the moon has none.

Re:Mars? First things first! (1)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529813)

I think the grandparent was joking.

Re:Mars? First things first! (4, Funny)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529993)

I can see you don't work anywhere near end-users. You'd think they were joking, too. But they still break their cupholders.

Re:Mars? First things first! (1)

LeninZhiv (464864) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530807)

Yes, well according to every Dr. Evil movie I'd ever seen, it didn't seem like it would be so hard to settle on the moon...

Re:Mars? First things first! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8533383)

>A planetoid needs a reasonable amount of gravity to retain a gaseous atmosphere before it bleeds off into space. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, the moon has none.

So isn't the thickness of the atmosphere more or less proportional to the planet's mass? If so, Mars' atmosphere is about as thick as it is going to get... it simply doesn't have enough mass to keep enough gas material from bleeding off into space, or else the air would already have more density.

Re: Atmosphere vs Gravity (1)

some guy I know (229718) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541103)

isn't the thickness of the atmosphere more or less proportional to the planet's mass?
Not necessarily.
Venus has slightly less mass than Earth (about 90%), but Venus's atmosphere is over 90 times thicker than Earth's (around 9100%).

Re:Mars? First things first! (1)

01dbs (696498) | more than 10 years ago | (#8542967)

>So isn't the thickness of the atmosphere more or less proportional to the planet's mass?

A number of factors, including mass, determine the thickness of a planet's atmosphere. Others include composition and temperature, along with a whole host of more subtle effects.

Mars, in fact, could (and did, at one point) have an atmosphere as thick as the Earth's. Mars' atmosphere was literally blasted away by meteor impacts early in the solar system's history. Mass was definitely the main factor here: because of Earth's larger mass, its escape velocity is higher than Mars'. So the Earth was able to pull back significant amounts of atmosphere afer an impact, whereas impacts on Mars simply blew the atmosphere off into space.

But I don't think there's any reason, now that impacts are considerably more infrequent, that Mars couldn't retain a more dense atmosphere.

Re:Mars? First things first! (5, Insightful)

notamac (750472) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529414)

I think a critical thing here is that Mars is much easier due to having enough gravity to actually hold a terraformed atmosphere in place - something the moon is lacking.

Re:Mars? First things first! (1)

looseBits (556537) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531916)

It doesn't take a lot of gravity to hold an atmosphere in place. Look at Titan, it has a mass of only 1.35E23 Kg (compared to Earth's 5.98E24 Kg) and atmosphereic pressure of 1.6 bar. The moon has a mass of 7.35E22 so surely it could support a breathable atmosphere (say 0.5 bar).

Re:Mars? First things first! (2, Insightful)

Xilman (191715) | more than 10 years ago | (#8533232)

Titan has the great benefit (?) of being cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.

You don't need so much mass to keep a thick atmosphere that far out in the solar system.

Paul

Re:Mars? First things first! (1)

looseBits (556537) | more than 10 years ago | (#8536793)

I'm sure that helps but lets look at Venus, 4.9E24 Kg (slightly lighter than Earth), surface temp of almost 500 deg C and air pressure of 90 atm.

It seems to me that the reason some planets have an atmosphere and others don't is simply the availability of volitiles such as CH4, CO2, N2, O2, NH3, etc.

If Venus and Titan can both support such thick atmospheres, I don't see why the Moon can't.

No easy answer (2, Interesting)

Grave (8234) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529449)

Unlike microwavable dinners, we can't just nuke it to heat it up. Or can we? While massive use of nuclear detonations on Earth would chill the planet ("nuclear winter"), would the immense release of various gasses and energies actually increase the average temperature of Mars? Not that I would seriously suggest we start our first off-planet colonies with an interplanetary nuclear barrage or anything.

Re:No easy answer (3, Funny)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529476)

i'm in favor of detonating lots of nukes on mars, just to see what happens.

Re:No easy answer (1)

notamac (750472) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529500)

Not sure, but I think seeing Venus's atmosphere sent outwards a few hundred kilometres would look pretty cool.

Remember that the main idea behind nuking a planet is to get cool things to watch on discovery channel.

Re:No easy answer (3, Funny)

flewp (458359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529627)

Yeah, maybe they could have a pay-per view special to fund the costs.

Re:No easy answer (3, Interesting)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8536249)

Foo: I'm in favor of detonating lots of nukes on mars, just to see what happens.
Bar: Not sure, but I think seeing Venus's atmosphere sent outwards a few hundred kilometres would look pretty cool.
Baz: Yeah, maybe they could have a pay-per view special to fund the costs.

Interestingly, I just listened to someone discuss the awesome power of a sight that fewer and fewer people have seen: nuking the Earth.

On NPR's Fresh Air [npr.org] , former Secretary of the Air Force Thomas Reed talked about his new book, At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War. In addition to his policial role, he was for a while a "consultant to the director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a well-known center for nuclear weapons research." As such, he helped design nuclear weapons, and was present during their testing.

He pointed out that witnessing an above-ground nuclear detonation was itself a life-changing event, and that the experience colored the decisions of all who saw and felt it. The light, he said of a Christmas Island [nuclearweaponarchive.org] blast, wasn't just bright -- it was all-enveloping, even through the way-beyond-dark goggles. And the instant blast of heat, that made you want to run away, anywhere, just to get away.

But nuke tests are now performed underground, where the awesome power is visible only as instrument ticks and a dimple [nuclearweaponarchive.org] in the ground. As the old scientists die, there are fewer and fewer people who have witnessed a nuclear blast as it would occur in the above-ground world.

The whole concept is so abstract, we can now discuss the idea of blowing one up on another planet, without even breaking into a sweat. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks in the militaries of the world who can do the same sort of abstract thinking in reference to their own planet.

Damn, that got a lot deeper than I thought it would...

Re:No easy answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8538505)

I believe you'll find that the solar energy received during a single day on Mars is far in excess of the potential energy output of all nuclear weapons on earth. We've done plenty of nuclear tests on earth... how much did the planet warm up as a result?

M.B.A. flash of brilliance (3, Funny)

Dr. Bent (533421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529547)

We'll outsource all of our industry to Mars!

Benefits:
- Cheap Martian labor (They don't even USE money up there!)
- Lax environmental law
- Low taxes
- No import/export tarrifs
- Cheap raw materials (The whole planet is made of frikkin' iron!)

and after a few thousand years we'll have a brand new hospitable planet. Of course there are some drawbacks. For one, the commute is going to be hellish. But where else are we going to go after the labor market in China starts demanding decent pay and working conditions? We've got to think ahead, people!

Send Me!! (0, Flamebait)

bhima (46039) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529552)

This is a great idea, and I think it could be impleemnted in our life time (Provided the USians quit spending all of their money on weapons). If every one is still worriend about saftey SEND ME!

Re:Send Me!! (1, Interesting)

flewp (458359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529641)

I think it's a great idea too, provided non-americans get their heads out of their asses and stop making stupid posts just to hear themselves sound cool.

Re:Send Me!! (2, Insightful)

bhima (46039) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529753)

US military spending is over three times what the rest of the world spends (2002-2003: 389 billion).

A manned mission to Mars is estimated to be 55 million. Even with the inevitable over-spending it's a pittance in comparison.

And just to make my self sound cool: The mission to mars could probably be paid for with the profits the USians make from the production of land mines they have covered southeast Asia with.

The point is money is obviously not a problem, the prioritization is!

Re:Send Me!! (1)

sponge_absorbent (588860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530665)

I think you mean billion and not million.

But on everything else i agree, it's a small price to pay.
I dont want to be a member of a temporary species.

Re:Send Me!! (-1, Flamebait)

A55M0NKEY (554964) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531403)

Just think, rest of the world, if it weren't for you guys having nukes, the US would have troops in your country to enforce tribute payments to the USA.

You've got to be kidding me (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531548)

Manned mission to Mars for 55 million? The two rovers that are wondering around the surface cost 810 million.

Re:Send Me!! (1)

mikeee (137160) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531836)

US military spending as a percentage of GDP has been dropping slowly since the 1950s, though...

Re:Send Me!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8544709)

Don't try to use facts with non-Americans or liberals. They don't like them

Correction (2, Informative)

2marcus (704338) | more than 10 years ago | (#8532412)

I think you have your ratio of US to world spending wrong:

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade / Spending.asp

It is much closer to 1:1 rather than 3:1. Though your point still holds - we could probably afford to cut military spending in order to increase spending on other activities, and (the cynic's view) spending on space is a good way to keep our military technical superiority even if it isn't directly weapons spending.

-Marcus

ps. Nor do I believe that the US makes 55 billion profits on land mines.

Re:Correction (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 10 years ago | (#8534386)

What people are missing is that no small chunk of that spending is really DARPA research spending. DARPA research spending constitutes MOST of all spending on advanced research in all areas of science. Although it's slotted to the military, the money isn't just being used for guns, it's being used to help perfect fusion technologies that could provide the world with plentiful cheap energy for example.

Yes the military has a combat use in mind or believes all the research could potentially benefit them, but the fact is that a VERY significant piece of all technologies being worked on and developed in the US for other areas like use in homes started with some of that military cash that no corporate entity would give.

The military looks for a return in technology, and they aren't concerned if they have to basically entirely fund the establishment of an entire branch of new science all the way through it's infancy before that science could potentially give them some new weapon or a way to keep soldiers alive longer or healthier. Corporate sponsorship just plain isn't interested unless it will give them a product in the near future and only interested if it's profitable.

Portable free plentiful energy makes sense for military investment, they want that shit for their soldiers. Big buisness doesn't see a benefit in much of anything becoming cheap or free.

Re:Correction (0, Flamebait)

bhima (46039) | more than 10 years ago | (#8540681)

Yes, I did mean Billion not Million.

The ratio of spending does vary wider than I expected depending on which source is used but I think 1.8:1 is average of a quick survey.

Average of a quick survey of world spending was just below 900 billion. So again the money is there if the priority was.

And as someone else pointed out DARPA funds research also.

SO all of this makes me feel like space must be militarized in order to attract funding (or sufficent interest)

Re:Send Me!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8531384)

'USian'? That kind of thing does nothing to get your point across. People in Mexico are Mexicans, people in Canada are Canadians and people in the United States of America are Americans. It's really simple. And you won't come off sounding like the kind of asshat that uses 'M$' or 'Winblows'.

Re:Send Me!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8534004)

Troll? Mods are definitely on crack. The parent post was the troll dipshits.

Re:Send Me!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8544793)

This is a great idea, and I think it could be impleemnted in our life time

Yeah, but not by your backwards government.

(Provided the USians quit spending all of their money on weapons).

Sure, I say we cut our spending on weapons, become isolationist, don't share our techonology with anyone and cut off all foriegn aid and immigration. We don't need to spend any more money on military, just fucking nuke whatever third world country we think Osama is in or whatever other brown skinned person thinks he can stand up to the US.

If every one is still worriend about saftey SEND ME!

I say the US should send you, your spell checker, your eurotrash attitude, your mother, your dog, your girlfriend with the hairy armpits, and the whole fucking eastern hemisphere to mars. Just don't come back, ok?

Oasis? (1)

sl8r (104278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529561)

Is it my imagination, or have we finally found something to terraform?

Re:Oasis? (1)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 10 years ago | (#8538965)

have we finally found something to terraform?

We have.

Count on them to somehow manage to fuck it all up, though.

Terraforming Mars (1)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529621)

Terraforming Mars is fun to think about but ultimately useless. In a few billion years, our sun will go red giant and boil away Earth's oceans and royally screw up the terraformed Mars as well. If we REALLY want to think about a space travel project that has the capacity to preserve the human race after our sun runs out of hydrogen to burn, we'd start colonizing extra solar planets. That way when one sun goes nova, there's plenty of humans in other solar systems. Only then is our race truly immortal! Until of course we get invaded by species 8472, the Borg, the Dominion, the Romulans, the Klingons, the Xindi, or... oh wait.

Re:Terraforming Mars (1)

Feztaa (633745) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529765)

baby steps, man, baby steps. First mars, then some other extrasolar planet.

Re:Terraforming Mars (3, Interesting)

Unordained (262962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529895)

I haven't noticed "terraforming Mars" being proposed because of over-population of species-survival.

We could take care of over-population-related problems on earth if people would just stop reproducing so much. I mean, really guys ... you don't need that many kids (or any?) Our planet can easily sustain us for a long time to come, at least assuming we take care of it. The damage isn't irreversible -- if we're smart, she'll last us a while.

Species-survival? Our sun's not going anywhere. Based on the usually-suggested timelines for evolution of mankind, we're just getting started, and have plenty of time to figure things out (so long as we don't wipe ourselves out first.) It would be far more in the interest of self-preservation to dismantle our nukes than to find new planets. We're a bigger danger to ourselves than the sun, or likely aliens.

No, I'd say we're thinking of terraforming Mars for other reasons:
- The hell of it. (No, really.)
- Research. (How does life develop? Were we an accident? Necessary?)

There's no reason to feel we need to rush it, just so we can "get down to business" using Mars for ores or habitation. We're comfortable here. We're rushing because we've watched enough sci-fi to have an idea of what might be possible -- and we want to see it happen.

Besides ... the moment we set stuff down on Mars, we've got people sending us rent bills for plots of land they "own" ... maybe we should get that resolved first?

Re:Terraforming Mars (5, Funny)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529992)

ou don't need that many kids

We interrupt this silly post to point out that this is slashdot, these people REALLY aren't part of the problem. Thank you.

Re:Terraforming Mars (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531710)

Perhaps you havn't seen this proposal because it would not work. No way to move people as fast as people reproduce.

Not a problem (1)

bluGill (862) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531823)

According to population experts (as opposed to the lay man...) the world population will peak about 2060. Perhaps in your lifetime! China and most of Europe already does not have enough births to maintain a study population, with Europe only seeing population increases because of immigration.

Re:Terraforming Mars (3, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 10 years ago | (#8532965)

Responding to you and your parent. First, colonizing Mars would increase the sustainability of our species - it is far more likely that the earth will be hit by a big astroid before the sun runs out. Furthermore, we are fairly certian that we have tons of time before the sun runs out, but cant' predict when the next big astroid will come - could be 5 years from now, or it could be 10,000. So getting all our eggs out of this basket that is Earth is more important in the short-run than getting out of the solar system.

We could take care of over-population-related problems on earth if people would just stop reproducing so much. I mean, really guys ... you don't need that many kids (or any?)

Actually that is a short-sighted solution to the problem. The european birth rate has been dropping for some time now, while universal health care has been increasing life expectancy. They are now realizing that they will be in a real jam in a couple decades when the average age of the population is 64.

Re:Terraforming Mars (1)

Unordained (262962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8533665)

[excluded middle?]

So, should we just let old people die? Refuse life-extending procedures? We're already trying to push back the age for retirement to get more "bang" out of a person, but that just doesn't seem like a great idea either.

Our average age is going to continue to be high unless we:
- let/make people die at a younger age
- have a significantly higher rate of birth than death, which means population growth

Wars could do some of that, but it seems like wars mostly kill the young, not the old. And after a war, well, we get a population boom. That'll keep the population young for only so long, before they all hit retirement age together.

Ideas?

Re:Terraforming Mars (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8530011)

Don't mark people as foes for no good reason, you lamer.

Re:Terraforming Mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8530327)

Your username being windows [slashdot.org] is reason enough.

Re:Terraforming Mars (1)

juhaz (110830) | more than 10 years ago | (#8546282)

You need to start somewhere.

Those dozens of extrasolar colonies full of humans won't just *POOF* into existence when you wait few years.

Few billion years is a frickin' *LONG* *LONG* *LONG* time. It's so long it's totally incomprehensible for simple mortals like us. Worrying about something happening after billion years and trying to plan for it without intermediary steps is nuts. Eukaryotes were only born 1.5 billion years ago, and life didn't crawl out of oceans until 1 billion years ago. Maybe they shouldn't have bothered, after all, only four or so more billion years to go...

Biggest threats to our "immortality" are probably: blowing up/poisoning/whatever ourselves, followed by planetscale more or less natural catastrophes (asteroid strike, supervolcanos, climate change...), all of which can be significantly lessened or even eliminated by a number of terraformed planets, or even domed colonies or big space stations in solar system.

Solar system busting events are nothing we can do about right now, but given few thousand years of intersystem space travel, and harvesting resources...

this is interesting but lacking on details. (2, Insightful)

sponge_absorbent (588860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529670)

When the first humans start living on mars, i assume they will need all the resources availiable, and wont be interested in venting precious oxygen into the atmosphere.
However, as we get a decent foot hold established there, this will become more feasable. The article doesnt mention how many of the 'units' will be needed, but i would guess it will be a very large number. So we are probably talking about factories produceing the units from local materials.
It also seems that it would be a waste of resources to have CO2 factories (humans) tending the O2 factories ('units'), so the units would probably need to be fully automated.
Even if this terraforming method isnt used on mars, research into it could greatly benefit us here on earth. I hope we hear about more about this.

Re:this is interesting but lacking on details. (2, Informative)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530024)

We've already got plentiful O2 factories here on earth. They're called "plants". The problem is, to build them from thier pre-fab state (seeds), you need warmth, sunlight, C02 and water. Mars is badly lacking in both the warmth and water components, the sunlight isn't that great, and the C02 is a bit thinner than what they're used to.

Re:this is interesting but lacking on details. (1)

sponge_absorbent (588860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530351)

We also have something called "desertification" and "hunger".
Notice that i said:
"...research into it could greatly benefit us here on earth."
and not "...Minimal Units of Terraforming could greatly benefit us here on earth."
But thanks for telling me about plants, someone mod obeythefist informative!

Re:this is interesting but lacking on details. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8540244)

Actually it looks like they did.

I for one... (1)

Channard (693317) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529940)

.. welcome the notion of standing Liam and Noel Gallagher on Mars to play their own brand of 'I wish I was John Lennon' BritPop to the microbes. Unless they bred, in which case it might not be so good.. 'Maahs Attaahks' anyone?

Aren't we forgetting something? (2, Interesting)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 10 years ago | (#8529986)

Err... correct me if i'm being an idiot here, but I thought the reason Mars' atmosphere was so thin was because it lacks a complete magnetic field. When the planet 'died' (assuming it did) a bazillion years ago, solar wind from the sun hosed the planet and blew away much of its atmosphere, or so i'm told.

So... wouldn't that make terraforming Mars kind of like pouring water into a sieve?

Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (2, Interesting)

obeythefist (719316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530031)

Yep, that and the smaller gravitational pull of the planet. The bigger problem is that there's no van-allen belt surrounding Mars either, because the core is dead. Who'd have thunk all those volcanoes were so good for us.

Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (1)

MemoryAid (675811) | more than 10 years ago | (#8559227)

The core is dead? Wasn't there a movie about this happening to Earth? Seems like they used nuclear weapons to fix it, although I haven't seen it and may be thinking of Dr. Evil's scheme from another movie [imdb.com] .

Perhaps I would have gone to see The Core [thecoremovie.com] if it had been about terraforming Mars by jumpstarting the core. I don't suppose it could have gotten any less plausible.

Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (3, Interesting)

Tango42 (662363) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530047)

I think the time scales involved are very large. It would be like pouring water into a sieve with very small holes.

Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8532898)

I wonder if it would be possible to create an artificial magnetosphere around mars... Could something along the lines of m2p2 (ask google if you don't know) be extended to create a field that could shield a planet? Maybe a field created at the mars-sun L1 point and blown up big enough would extend around the planet, with the solar wind itself elongating the field towards mars. Or maybe superconducting cables around the equator, or several at different latitudes. construction would be a bitch though, someone's gotta come up with a way to mass produce superconducting cable with materials available on mars...

Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (-1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 10 years ago | (#8533141)

But, Look at Venus, atmoshpere that is far more dense andf massive than earth and Venus is closer to the sun and has a far weaker magnetic field.

Wht we should do is build wormhole on Venus and vent some extra CO2 to Mars!!

Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (1)

Suidae (162977) | more than 10 years ago | (#8537594)

I still think a much better idea than trying to 'fix' Mars is to just develop humans that suit the environment. I mean, its pretty inefficent to have to maintain Earth-like conditions everywhere we go, it would be much better if we could develop the technologies necessary to harden human physiology to withstand cold vaccum conditions with minimal protection. Beef up radition damage correction mechanisims by an order of magnitude or two and maybe build in some powered materials recycling equipment (why carry along oxygen when you can extract CO2 and such from blood and convert it right in to O2 and sugar?).

The probably isn't that the universe is wrong and needs to be fixed, its that we are delicate, squishy things that require lots of external short cuts to keep our biology going. With sufficent energy input and on-board recycling technology (designed to last indefinately rather than just long enough to reproduce successfully), we would have a much easier time with this whole space colonization thing.

Since terraforming is science fiction anyway... (3, Interesting)

dpilot (134227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8530826)

An interesting proposal was part of the story, "Mining the Oort" (IIRC, by either Frederick Pohl or Poul Anderson, it's sitting on the shelf at home.)

****SPOILER ALERT******

Eventually they smacked Mars with a series of comets in one locality. The impacts built a long, deep valley. They also released a pile of water vapor. Since the valley was the lowest area of topography around, most of the released vapor settled there. I forget how deep the valleys were, but in the bottoms they were able to achieve some decent partial pressures. Of course it wasn't O2, but water vapor, ammonia, and some other cometary traces. But correcting the gas mix is the 'easy' part of terraforming once you've got the right atoms in the right place.

Going for deep valleys either does away with the dome entirely, or possibly doming over the top of the valley.

Getting inhabitable valleys then looks more like the Mars of C.S. Lewis's "Out of the Silent Planet."

Re:Since terraforming is science fiction anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8531419)

Why not just smash Ganymede into Marz and get a decent sized planet....

How about this (1)

Paddyish (612430) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531613)

Since adding more atmosphere just isn't feasible, let's entertain another crazy option: pressurizing a valley (or cave system?).

Why not? Cover a huge valley with a nice strong material, and then start pumping extra atmosphere into it. Maybe some derivative material of the space elevator cable.

It's not any more outlandish than other ideas I've read.

Re:How about this (2, Informative)

sponge_absorbent (588860) | more than 10 years ago | (#8532856)

I like ideas that use local materials and conditions to our advantage. But this has some technical problems:

You will need to seal the walls and floor of the valley/crater your using to prevent gas escapeing faster than you can pump it in.

You will also need to keep the cover in place and it will require a lot of force. Complex plants need a minimum of about 0.5PSI to survive, and the current martian atmospheric pressure is so small it can be a saftey/fudge factor.
100 square meters worth of cover needs approximately 350tons of force to hold it in place. But since martian gravity is about 1/3 that of earth, we really need over a 1kiloton of force. So it isnt impossible, it's just difficult. Partially covered lava tubes might be the best place to try this idea, they shouldnt be too porous, and the igneous rock would make a good anchor for the cover.
But remember i calculated for plants, and not humans, we require much greater atmospheric pressure to survive and thus a much stronger cover.

Re: High-pressure working environment (1)

some guy I know (229718) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541293)

You will also need to keep the cover in place and it will require a lot of force. [...] 100 square meters worth of cover needs approximately 350tons of force to hold it in place. But since martian gravity is about 1/3 that of earth, we really need over a 1kiloton of force. So it isnt impossible, it's just difficult.
If the dome is sufficiently shallow, the force can be supplied simply by piling material onto the top of it.

my idea (1)

drwho (4190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8531814)

ok, putting aside the need for a magnetic field for a moment, how about letting evolution take hold:

use a mirror to concentrate light to warm an area with water and melt it. Introduce our best microbes to said area, giving them a fair amount of nutrients from earth, but at a controlled rate. The microbes reproduce, and gradually mutate, some of these traveling to the edge of the life zone, and becoming pioneers on the mars surface: surviving with less water, etc. The life zone continues to grow, with the most hardy pioneers on the fringes and the microbe manifest destiny to cover mars begins.

The problem is, this could take a very long time. Chemical processes, including life, tend to move slower at lower temperatures. Those multi-hundred year old lichens in antarctica would seem like bamboo/kudzu by comparison.

Send our pollution to Mars (1)

booch (4157) | more than 10 years ago | (#8532649)

One planet's pollution is another planet's rain machine

Hey, we've got plenty of extra pollution here on Earth. And Mars could use more pollution to help terraform. So why don't we just ship all our extra pollution to Mars?

Greenhouse gases (2, Interesting)

barakn (641218) | more than 10 years ago | (#8534529)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, gets removed and is replaced by oxygen, which isn't very reactive in the infrared. The atmosphere is less able to hold heat, and so the planet cools (except the exosphere, which actually heats up and increases the rate at which the atmosphere is escaping). CO2 ice builds up on the ice caps, and so the atmospheric pressure drops. These plastic greenhouses might make the planet worse.

Re:Greenhouse gases (2, Interesting)

kippy (416183) | more than 10 years ago | (#8535755)

If the atmosphere is increased by 500 fold (high mountain on Earth type pressure) it will have much much more CO2 than it does now. remember that it's only 7 bars on Mars now while it's 1024 bars on Earth. There will be plenty of CO2 to trap heat.

CO2 is really weak too remember. Heating up the atmosphere will need to be done with a coctail of CO2, CFCs PFCs, amonia, water and methane.

See here [globalnet.co.uk] for a NASA study.

Green Mars (2, Informative)

CosmicDreams (23020) | more than 10 years ago | (#8538122)

Sounds familar to Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars. The Red Mars/Green Mars/Blue Mars is a good trilogy about mars terraforming. I'd recommend it if this topic intrests you.

Terraforming What? (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 10 years ago | (#8540491)

Everything I needed to know about terraforming I learned in kindergarten: You're not allowed to play in the neighbor's sandbox (whether nor not there's anyone home) as long as you keep pooping in your own. Nobody gets to terraform Mars until they can prove they can terraform Earth for the better, instead of for the worse. I think that's a fair test of both capability and intent, with the side benefits of a cleaner sandbox for everyone and a much better idea of what's being done wrong (and thus by whom).

Re:Terraforming What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8583043)

OK, I'll bite - how do you propose to use science, technology, and engineering talent to solve what is for the most part a sociological problem? Too few resources for the population. There's an obvious solution, but probably not one you'd like.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...