A laymen's ideas for terraforming. Any merit?

[LogicianSolutions]

Hi all. I'm new to the actual science side of space/terra forming community. However here's my layman's ideas.
1. Mars needs more water then it has. Doesn't it make sense to use non nuclear warheads to knock comets into mars. Perhaps even doing something as complex as knocking an ice moon (think there's one around Saturn, forgot if that's where it was or someplace else.) Then before it impacts Mars (and possibility destroys it, we knock other meteors into it to guide it's course and also break it apart before Mars' impact. Now I realize we need to worry a lot about breaking comets'meteors too much apart. If the blast hits them at their strongest point for course adjustments and the weakest point for breaking it apart. We may even want to put charges on the srufaces of meteors. The reason I suggest using meteors to move larger meteors/moons is because it would be easier to move a small meteor with a blast then a big one and yet the small meteor would have potentially more force then conventional warheads and it'd be cheaper to send a few rockets to adjust small meteors then bigger/more rockets to adjust bigger meteors or even small moons.

2. There is also the issue of mars being a "dead planet" with no molten core. Reheating it's core is currently impossible for us. However we could drill several thousand 25 km+ holes down into mar's stable crust and set off numerous nuclear warheads. This while maybe unable to reheat the core completely would give us some thermal heat and maybe even more gravity and stronger magnetic forces to hold the atmosphere in better. It would also help heat the world.

If this solution is used then we may have to evacuate Mars for the incoming water and the reheating of the mantel.

Of course while we work on the numerous mines around the world, we will need a safe haven base to work from. Why does everyone want to build structures on the surface of Mars? especially since Mars occasionally has meteor strikes hit it's surface. A better place (especially since it's a dead planet with no earth quakes) is under ground. We can send in advance machines to mine out a subterranean structure. Then with thin lays of fabrics and/or condensed foamed insulation we can make the facility air tight. This means we basically only need to bring solid doors for our facilities.

Next is nuclear power plants. With such cold temperature cooling the power plant is easier. As for the nuclear waste? We can dump much of it down one of the mines. Little solar panels and wind mills will never terra-form mars quick enough. However we should look to France for their latest tech in nuclear power plants. While Mars currently has no appreciable life sustaining habitat, I do know radiation lasts for thousands of years. Hmm from what I recall Mars' surface (do to lack of a thick enough atmosphere) is struck with solar radiation. What are the current levels? I believe some type of nuclear powerd tunneling machine would be needed. Once it's mined out habitats it could be used as a power plant for the facility. Perhaps even be the power source for the mining machines although I think it'd be better to make mine drillers with plat forms and their own nucleaer power to drill the holes down.

So any thoughts for this layman's ideas? I am new to science based terra forming but what little I've seen on terra forming they're looking more to making man made structures and using factories break down soil and vent the right mixtures into the air coupled with seeding microbs to help increase oxygen levels. To me this is folly unless you can establish enough gravity to hold the atmosphere in for atleast 10,000 years while I do see the use of microbs it just seems they'd be used more in the third stage then the first or second stage.

BTW I've heard a few times mention of sending automated shipments ahead so when people go there will be supplies at mars (and on the moon) but I've not seen that line of obvious logic pushed much.
Also does it make sense to make the main ship capable of landing on one of Mar's meteor moons? Seems to me landing on the "bottom" of one would provide some protection from meteor strikes and radiation from the sun.

Odds and Ends.
1: Why isn't internal centrifical force equipment (Think 15' diamater spinning solid bar "swing" that has a hard flat 6' long "bench" where one can lay down and sleep/do push-ups/sit-ups/similiar exersises? Why I agree it isnt as nice as 2001 spinning hulls, it may be more practical especialy if it folds up when not needed. Loss of gravity is a large problem for orbitting habitats.
2: Is it possible for the shuttle to be either used as a permenet addition to the space station and perhaps upkeeped enough to be a emergency escape vessle or be loaded with supplies and sent into either moon orbit or somehow left in space for some use? I see no point in retireing them if they could go on being useful if left in space. Maybe if the math is right it could even be left at the space station to repair satalites close to the space station's orbit and return to the space station until the next repair? Just seems to me it takes a lot to put that much space worthy mass in orbit and to bring it back after it's last mission just to either put it in musame or strip and recycle it
3: Is it possible for NASA to be excluded from EPA with the materials it uses with exception of extremely hazardus materials? If memory serves me correct we lost a shuttle because EPA said the insulation wasn't green enough. Our space program isn't like big and imho we should take some larger risks with the enviorment with this program then what is normal.
4: Can NASA please look into doing a lotto where they sell 10 dollar tickets and draw 1 winner a year. Let it be transferable to family members if the person can't pass the physical/mental demands Also give them 100k and a legal excuse to miss work for the length it takes to train and go into space 1 time. I have floated this idea to a few friends and I know a lot of guys and some girls who'd buy 1-20 tickets over the course of a year. This may seem silly to some but if average americans can relate to NASA they'll vote for a better budget
5: Can someone let NASA know they need to fire who ever is in charge of the NASA shows I see on cable? It's pethetic. There should be excitting fun shows which educate people on the benifits we get from NASA and where NASa wants to take us. I think the only current the NASA shows have is as sleeping aids.

Well sent a couple of letters to NASA on these ideas a few days ago and their site said they'd reply with in 15 or so days. Anyways what do you all think?

 

[vattas]

Just a few answers:
1. To "knock a comet" to Mars with "warheads" (be it nuclear or not) would require the comet, that's already heading to Mars, but has some small probability to miss it. Altering path of a massive body with explosions is not the way to go if you don't want to break it apart. Gentle push decades long will do the job better. But you will need the right comet anyway.
2. Hammering Mars with hammers will make the same effect. And spinning core has nothing to do with gravity.

 

[mr_mark]

Terraformoing is an ill conceived dream that will probably never happen. Why?, in the case of Mars, there is no way to get around the solar radiation question. Life has no protection against that. What we need to do is start to figure out structures that allow for the most flexibility when it comes to surface living. Large domes with underground access is probably the way to go, at least for the next 200 years. People, you watch too much science fiction, there is no "Genesis device, Genesis give me Genesis" lol. Let's get in the real world and really see what we can accomplish.

 

[kelvinzero]

I quite like the centrifugal exercise equipment idea.
We dont need some special spinning section and it doesnt need to be powered or need super frictionless barings since the point is exercise anyway. Something pedal powered that spins around in habitable region that is only a few meters across. I have heard there are problems with disorientation but I bet that is exaggerated to justify someone's grant.. people are adaptable!

I also like the lottery idea. Most lotteries are a rip off by definition but this is effectively a donation, and unlike usual fundraising not a cent is wasted. The millions to send someone to space are millions spent on keeping engineers trained and employed in space related technology, not blown on a rocket as most people seem to think.

 

[emudude]

Terraformoing is an ill conceived dream that will probably never happen. Why?, in the case of Mars, there is no way to get around the solar radiation question. Life has no protection against that. What we need to do is start to figure out structures that allow for the most flexibility when it comes to surface living. Large domes with underground access is probably the way to go, at least for the next 200 years. People, you watch too much science fiction, there is no "Genesis device, Genesis give me Genesis" lol. Let's get in the real world and really see what we can accomplish.

Actually, you would be interested to know that life *does* have protection against radiation. In fact, a recent Russian space experiment recently showed that certain microorganisms were DIRECTLY exposed to the vacuum of space for days and they still survived...and here's the kicker...they were then DIRECTLY exposed to the sun while still in the vacuum, and most of them returned to earth showing virtually no impact to their reproduction cycles. As well, cockroaches are widely known to be highly resistant to radiation. If you have appropriate shielding, there is no way for the radiation to ionize any part of your body.

Considering the fact that objects regularly impact with large bodies orbiting our sun, I don't see why it would be unreasonable to use a conventional rocket - over a few decades, as vattas suggested - to push a water-bearing comet into Mars. If a sufficient greenhouse effect is established, heat would allow the water to melt. The only problem I see is the lack of a sufficient magnetic field - not sure how to tackle that one.

Terraforming is likely to consume a great deal of energy, and while I don't believe that it is impossible, I agree with mr_mark when he says that we should focus on adapting ourselves to the environments we wish to colonize by using dome cities. The reason for this is because we are already technologically capable of building these cities. As always, the major hurdle stopping us from actually setting out to do this is our highly expensive and inefficient launch capabilities.

 

[scottb50]

The only problem I see is the lack of a sufficient magnetic field - not sure how to tackle that one.

Gps would work just as well.

 

[emudude]

I quite like the centrifugal exercise equipment idea.
We dont need some special spinning section and it doesnt need to be powered or need super frictionless barings since the point is exercise anyway. Something pedal powered that spins around in habitable region that is only a few meters across. I have heard there are problems with disorientation but I bet that is exaggerated to justify someone's grant.. people are adaptable!

It isn't feasible. People can't adapt to this. It is the same as spinning someone in a chair.

People can't adapt to spinning someone in a chair, but if you have no windows and you are in a sufficiently large rotating habitat, such that the non-normal forces to the ground were several factors of ten less than the normal force, you would have no idea that you were in such a structure.

 

[neilsox]

Most of the ideas have merit, but are too costly in 2009. Technology may advance, so we should never say never. Short radius centrifuges are like carnival rides = most people can tolerate for only a few minutes. We think a few minutes per day is not long enough to prevent bone loss and other low gravity problems, but we have done no tests at 0.37 g (Mars) and only a few days at 1/6 g (Moon) so we might be pleasantly surprised. It may be practical to genetically alter humans for low g or even zero g, and for better radiation tolerance. Frequent exposure to typical Mars surface radiation would, we think, result in cancer, but cancer may soon be curable.
Yes, more water would help, and comets are a likely source of water. Millions of medium size comets would likely be needed to make Mars more livable, as the dry soil would soak up most of the water. The impact heating of a thousand comets per year might warm the average surface of Mars 0.5 degrees c = 0.9 degrees f = not much.
Photosynthesis plants such as algae can convert some of the carbon dioxide to oxygen, but it would take a thousands of years to reach 21% oxygen, and the air pressure would still be too low for even genetically altered humans, except about 20 miles below the surface of Mars, where the column of air reaching to the surface would increase the air pressure. There may also be the optimum amount of water about 20 miles down and it is likely warm rather than cold. Even if it is cold, it will gradually get hot with humans living deep underground due to the waste heat we produce. The escape of heat to the surface is very slow, at a depth of 20 miles. Unfortunately living 20 miles underground means nearly all supplies need to be brought from the surface, perhaps 500 miles in gently sloping passage ways, unless we invent the Star trek replicator, which is very improbable, except using very specialized raw material which would need to be brought from the surface. Neil

 

[emudude]

Most of the ideas have merit, but are too costly in 2009. Technology may advance, so we should never say never.

You've got that right...if it costs us 450 million to launch the shuttle, how much would it cost to make a "dead" planet habitable? We can't even seem to keep our own planet alive lolol

 

[LogicianSolutions]

There's a few points I'd like to address but I'll save them for a later date.
The one point I'd like to address is the idea that terra forming a planet would cost too much. On the contrary it'd insure our wealth for generations to come. The technologies we would obtain from this endevour would insure America's wealth for a thousand years, especially if we claimed a large part of Mars. However we could make a few enimies doing the terra forming because of jelous nations.

btw doesn't the bible say the meek shale inherit the earth, and the passage before it stated only after the strong left?