Teraforming mars – my theory

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bilb0

Guest
As this is my first post here I just wanted to introduce myself, I'm graphic designer, 26 yrs, from Stockholm Sweden. I don’t have any formal education I just like to explore my ides. And I found this forum searching the web about a thought I hade for some time now, and this seemed like the right place to ask others about it.<br /><br />To me it seems that the human race is expanding at an alarming rate world wide, we live longer and I read somewhere that we are going to over populate earth in about 2100. If that’s true, the implications are going to be huge. Its properly going to lead to some sort of war, survival of the richest, my guess. But in any way we are going to migrate from earth if we survive long enough.<br /><br />My thought<br />So if we as humans want to migrate to another world like mars, we need to terraform mars into earth like properties, and to even get close of something like that a global commitment would be needed, and whit that would it be possible to slingshot europa from Jupiter’s orbit for a collision course whit mars, and thus adding enough water to create true oceans. Or is it enough water on mars as it is, for me that seems unlikely. Of course heating is a factor but I only thought of the water, so far. Too move a moon of course it would consume allot of power that’s why I'm here, I haven’t done the maths, I got a good understanding but it’s out of my league. But would it be possible, would mars survive such an impact?<br /><br />Think different <br />If every nation sat down and made a true commitment to a cause like global warming today, and actually spent most of there budgets according, progress would properly been unseen by the human race before. - Me<br />Be creative<br /> <br />
 
L

logicize

Guest
There are others here that will give you a complete scientific answer. But for me, I've had the same thought. I just think the impact would be way to violent for mars. It would probably take and extremely long time for it to cool enough to be habitable. Not to mention, it would probably be impossible to move the moon.<br /><br />My thought was to implement some type of robotic ice mining operation that would be capable of contanst ice transport from the moon to mars. At some point in the future, 10s of thoundsand of years + they would move it all. In the meantime it would support the water needs of a growing mars population, maybe. It all does kind of sound science fictiony.
 
B

billslugg

Guest
Welcome to SDC! Your command of English is remarkable. <br />Extending humanity to another planet will not solve the population crisis. It would only put it off a few years. Only when all mankind is at a level of affluence where additional children are not desired will population come under control. The question is whether there will be enough resources to support 7 billion people that way. The US has 5% of the world population but uses 25% of the energy. (We also produce 25% of the world's goods and services, so our energy usage is justifiable) If the remaining 95% of the world were to suddenly increase their energy usage to our level, the world would need 5 times the energy being used now. Something has to give somewhere. <br /><br />Mother Earth will deal with this the same way she deals with everything. Survival of the fittest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
B

brigandier

Guest
I really don't think moving one of Jupiter's moons is possible at all.. Think about how big Jupiter is! We'd need to pull a moon away from *that*. Not only that, but we'd need to somehow aim it towards Mars<br /><br />I mean.. I wouldn't even know what to use....
 
L

logicize

Guest
"I mean.. I wouldn't even know what to use...."<br /><br />Rosie O'Donnell
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
I think we would be better off trying to farm icy comets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
B

bilb0

Guest
billslugg reply:<br /><br />My thought where more towards, moving enough people to get below reasonable level, so like a mass relocating or migrate, maybe 20-35% of the population. Of course that would be enough of a task, but if you where abele to move a moon, moving shouldn’t be that hard. I think people would work to go there like the mass migrate across the Atlantic to the US.
 
R

robnissen

Guest
It would be orders of magnitude easier to populate antartica with 100s of millions, than to support a population of 50,000 on Mars. I would think we are thousands of years from having any substantial population on Mars.
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi Bilb0,<br /><br />Welcome to SDC.<br /><br />In my opinion (IMO), Mars is not terraformable.<br /><br />What people tend to forget, is that Mars is the way it is for a multitude of reasons.<br /><br />1). Further from the Sun than Earth by approx 50%. This means that the amount of <br />sunlight reaching Mars is only about half that as reaching Earth. <br /><br />2). Small mass, only 11% of Earth, or twice that of Mercury.<br /><br />3). Lessr surface gravity. 37.7% that of Earth (incidently the surface gravity of <br />Mercury is almost the same, 37.6% that of Earth).<br /><br />4). Lack of global magnetosphere. The atmosphere is slowly being eroded by the solar wind.<br />As far as is known, the martian volcanoes are no longer active, so the primary <br />source of atmospheric replenishment / maintenance is shut off.<br /><br />Those four reasons, I can mention off the top of my head.<br /><br />Regarding Europa. As already mentioned, Europa is very deep within Jupiter's gravity<br />well. Europa orbit's Jupiter at nearly double the Moon's distance from Earth & yet <br />Europa orbit's Jupiter once every (approx) 3 days, <br />12 hours & 10 minutes or travelling at a <br />speed of 13.74 KPS / 8.53 MPS or 49,464 KPH / 30,717 MPH. <br /><br />Also Europa is not a small object. Europa has 63% of the mass of our Moon or is approx 4 times<br />more massive than Pluto <br />or approx 3 times more massive than Eris (the second largest & largest of the solar system's <br />known Dwarf Planets).<br /><br />What would an impact with an object of that mass, hitting Mars do??<br /><br />Mars is approx 10 times Moon mass, Europa is approx 0.63 Moon mass.<br /><br />So Europa has a mass of approx 0.063 or 6.3% that of Mars, or just over one twentieth. That<br />would be one huge whack.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
With the scale of effort it takes to move a small moon, you could probably smelt that moon into millions of O'Neill Cylinders with the ability to support at least hundreds of times the population of earth <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />
 
R

richalex

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1). Further from the Sun than Earth by approx 50%. This means that the amount of<br />sunlight reaching Mars is only about half that as reaching Earth. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Am I incorrect in understanding that if one doubles the distance, the light drops 4-fold? The inverse square law applies. So, at twice the distance to Sun, Mars receives about 1/4 the solar radiation that Earth does. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2). Small mass, only 11% of Earth, or twice that of Mercury.<br /><br />3). Lessr surface gravity. 37.7% that of Earth (incidently the surface gravity of<br />Mercury is almost the same, 37.6% that of Earth). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I don't understand how that works. Half the mass should have half the gravity, right? So, 10% of the mass should have 10% of the gravity. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>4). Lack of global magnetosphere. The atmosphere is slowly being eroded by the solar wind.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Maybe not so slowly. There was a big CME a few years ago that took something like 10% of the Martian atmosphere with it, IIRC. <br /><br />I read a long time ago that if we were to release enough air on Moon to create 1 atmosphere at the lunar surface, it should last about 300 years, before it mostly dissipates into space. I doubt that calculation considers the effect of CMEs, though.
 
R

richalex

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To me it seems that the human race is expanding at an alarming rate world wide, we live longer and I read somewhere that we are going to over populate earth in about 2100.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>What does that mean, to "over populate earth"? Projections right now are for Earth's population to increase to about 9.1 billion people by 2050, after which time, the population is expected to level off and begin to decline slowly. Most of that population growth will be due to African and Asian population expansion, such as India's population exceeding that of China's. Meanwhile, Western nations (U.S., E.U., Japan) are experiencing population drops that are currently supported only by immigration. If not for immigration, some countries would already be experiencing a population collapse. <br /><br />Space migration would not be practical for reducing Earth's population. We cannot move enough people off Earth for it to make a difference (never mind supporting them off Earth).
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
"Am I incorrect in understanding that if one doubles the distance, the light drops 4-fold? The inverse square law applies. So, at twice the distance to Sun, Mars receives about 1/4 the solar radiation that Earth does"<br /><br />That is correct. Andrew had a brain freeze there <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />"I don't understand how that works. Half the mass should have half the gravity, right? So, 10% of the mass should have 10% of the gravity"<br /><br />That is not correct for the surface of a planet, for a similar reason to the light question above. Since the radius of the planet is smaller, you are closer to the center of the mass.<br /><br />As for whether the atmosphere is being eroded slowly or fast, it depends on you perspective.<br />I don't recall seeing anything that said 10% was removed by the CME, but might have just missed it..<br />MW<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
Mars is at about 1.52 AU on average. That is 2.3 less radiation flux, not 4.
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
Hi bilb0,<br /><br />Imho, large scale colonization of planets is utterly impractical and unefficient energy-wise.<br />Colonizing smaller bodies (100km-1000km class) is far more efficient:<br />* shallower gravity well<br />* H2O, organics and ore far more easily accessible.<br /><br />If you really want to colonize Mars, you should be ready to live underground and/or modify yourself genetically. Getting GM-humans is a much more efficient approach imho, probably within reach of human knowledge within few decades (unlike moving Europa out from Jupiter's very strong gravity well).<br /><br />If you want to bring more water, rather use Ceres (far lighter, far closer, and not in a giant's planet grav well) or a small icy moon or KBO. If you really succeeded with Europa, given that Mars'area is one fourth of Earth, you would almost sink the whole planet with water and leave no dry land left (once the billion year of cooling down is passed).<br /><br />Finally, remember what they say in 2010 Space Odyssey. Don't touch Europa! There might be life there...<br /><br />Best regards.<br />
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
To billslugg:<br /><br />Hi,<br /><br />in reply to <br />------<br />The US has 5% of the world population but uses 25% of the energy. (We also produce 25% of the world's goods and services, so our energy usage is justifiable) <br />------<br /><br />There is considerable progress to be made by all developped countries in energy efficiency. Note that the EU and Japan are more efficient btw (2 times for fossil fuel consumption, 1.5 times in terms of electricity consumption, measured in Joules per $ of GDP) but with still considerable progress to be done.<br />From 100W freed from coal burning in a power plant, only 3W are finally used to light a room with a light bulb = /> 3% end-to-end efficiency!!<br /><br />If mankind finally achieves a J per GDP $ three to four times lower than the current ratio in EU and Japan, one can dream of an economic development compatible with planetary safeguard.
 
D

dragon04

Guest
To successfully colonize Mars, we don't have to "terraform" it.<br /><br />The real problem is in the ability to carry the machinery and equipment needed to build big habitats on Mars.<br /><br />A few Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM's) like those used to build the Chunnel could easily carve out a subterranian habitat on Mars.<br /><br />The deeper we dig, the greater the atmospheric pressure would be, the warmer the environment would be, and we would be protected from UV radiation and small asteroidal impacts.<br /><br />By doing so, most of the biggest engineering problems we face in colonizing Mars would disappear.<br /><br />Expedience is really the biggest hurdle to overcome. Well, that, and boosting several 400 ton TBM's to Mars, landing them, assembling them, and powering them. Simple stuff. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />My point is that we don't require the technology and engineering to move Moons or guide impactors to clooide with Mars.<br /><br />In fact, that would be the least productive way to terraform Mars in terms of human lifespans. Should we decide to impact Mars with a body the size of Ceres or Vesta, for example, how many millennia would it be before Mars <b>cooled down</b> enough to be inhabitable?<br /><br />Would a substantial atmospheric pressure of at least 400 millibars be created?<br /><br />And even if this were the case, we still have to deal with UV radiation and small impactors damaging the surface and any building we erect on the surface.<br /><br />Creating subterranean habitats is within our engineering capability right here, and right now. We have mastered that technology, in fact.<br /><br />I think that the first major colony on Mars should be underground. It's the path of least resistance to the planet's colonization, in my opinion.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Here is a link to a previous discussion<br /><br />An interesting result was that you get full earth pressure about 60km down, or under only 30 <b>meters</b> of water.<br /><br />Underground does seem to be the way to go. In many (perhaps most) places in the system that will actually mean under ice. Are we destined to become a subglacial civilisation?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subglacial_lake<br /><br />btw, does anyone know how high a tower or balloon would have to be at the martian pole to be in permanent sunlight?
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
Mars axial tilt is a=25.19°.<br />So the height to be in permanent sunlight is R(1/cos(a) - 1), with R = polar radius = 3376 km<br /><br />Hence 355km<br /><br />Pretty high!
 
B

billslugg

Guest
H2Ouniverse<br />Agreed there is a lot of gain to be made in the industrial nations efficiency wise. Japan is the very best probably because of a high population density, and excellent public transportation. It is scandalous that the US does not have high speed rail between NY and DC. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
eep. I should have sketched that idea on a scrap of paper first <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />So poles are not just cold. They simply have no access to solar power for a large proportion of the martian year (though during other times they will have 24 hour access, barring clouds).
 
3

3488

Guest
Excellent post Dragon04.<br /><br />That is my take on it as well. I think terraforming Mars is a moot point anyway, & <br />ramming large objects like Europa, 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas & 4 Vesta into Mars, is simply a nonstarter.<br /><br />Giant underground habitats, yes, I cannot see why not. More geological research <br />obviously will be needed to be carried out before large scale Chunnel (btw I live only <br />17 KM or 11 miles away from the British end of the Channel Tunnel or AKA The Chunnel) <br />like borings commence, but I think that large areas of Mars at least are quite enough now.<br /><br />I am not 100% sure about the Tharsis or Elysium volcanic areas. Whether or <br />not they are just going through a long term dormant period or if they are extinct, just dunno.<br /><br />Really future Mars landers need to be equipped with seismometers, as well as<br />their regular science payloads.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
Hi MeteorWayne,<br /><br />I think I did have a brain freeze. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> Nothing unusual there then <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> . My woolly headed<br />thinking again <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> .<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
P

Pooua

Guest
It may be that we would not need the large ground-boring machines at first. It might be that we could find very large, deep caverns, as we have apparently found some deep caves on Mars already. The first Martians might be cavemen.
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
K 0,<br /><br />actually, the top list for planetary bodies would be:<br />Mercury: 4 cm !!! (assuming no libration towards sun)<br />Ceres: 624 m<br />Moon: 629 m <br /><br />Which makes polar craters on these three bodies particularly interesting (both for ever-lit rim and ever-shadowed bottom)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts