We'll never go to Mars (generations, dollar, vs, laws)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if it was somehow possible to crash ice asteroids into Mars, develop an Earth-like atmosphere, and "salt" the newly created Martian oceans, there's still the issue that Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere to create radiation belts that can deflect harmful electromagnetic radiation from space, protecting the new atmosphere.
Mars supposedly used to have a denser atmosphere, but the lack of a magnetosphere allowed "solar wind" to strip it away over time.
And I question the requirement for salty oceans...the Great Lakes do find without salt.
Point taken. But I assume that to replicate terrestrial ocean life, the water will need to be salty.
Then again, ocean water has more than just sodium chloride in it; there's magnesium, sulfur, and a few other elements (in ionic form) as well. The salinity comes from soil, underground deposits, volcanic sources, and acidic rain, according to the National Oceanic agency. Does Mars have active geothermal activity?
We do believe that Mars has a molten iron interior, which if true suggests the planet is capable of generating a magnetosphere. If the atmosphere were enhanced with water vapor, perhaps magnetic forces from the core would ultimately be captured and form a protective field as the Earth has.
However it's unclear if a smaller, lighter planet will ever have as dense an atmosphere as the Earth. In other words, would it be breathable, or would it be like being atop Mount Everest, where you would need oxygen tanks to supplement the thin air?
Terraforming Mars is a complex process that would probably take centuries to complete. Even though Mars is the most earthlike planet, it is hostile for human habitation. Its atmosphere is only 1% that of earth's and 95% of it is composed of carbon dioxide. Humans cannot breathe on Mars and its atmosphere does not protect from harmful ultraviolet rays. So, the first order of business would be to increase the atmospheric pressure.
Probably being a little optimistic there. I'd say Millennia.
Anyway.. There's.. A buttload of problems. Magnetosphere.. Mars DOES have one.. It's just.. Weak. Solar winds/CME are suspected of knocking SOME of the atmosphere away.. But not all of it. Theory is that the late bombardment period may have removed quite a bit.
There are actually some wild ideas about a magnetic field for Mars out there. "Restarting" the core, is a non-starter. It was a bad movie, it's a bad idea in real life. But. A theory has been floating out there about blasting phobos and ionizing parts of the surface, which would be left in its orbital path around Mars, thus.. Creating a magnetic.. barrier around the planet.
I've heard other ideas.. Basically a giant 'sunshade' at the L2 point between Mars and the sun.. But.. All in all.. A magnetosphere is likely the LEAST of the problems in terraforming Mars. And even being the least of the problems, it's still one we can't solve currently.
As for atmosphere.. Wherever you fall on global warming.. It's taken.. What is it now? 150 years of pretty damn massive industrial activity on Earth to raise the global temp even 1 degree? There'd basically have to be some kind of runaway effect.. and then the problem is.. How do we stop it?
The one seemingly constant point.. Seems to be that anyone's bright idea about this.. One way or another involved algea. It seems to be the shining star in everything now. They say it's what we'll be eating, it'll change the atmosphere.. I expect someone will say it can be used to bring Elvis back to life soon..
Probably being a little optimistic there. I'd say Millennia.
Anyway.. There's.. A buttload of problems. Magnetosphere.. Mars DOES have one.. It's just.. Weak. Solar winds/CME are suspected of knocking SOME of the atmosphere away.. But not all of it. Theory is that the late bombardment period may have removed quite a bit.
There are actually some wild ideas about a magnetic field for Mars out there. "Restarting" the core, is a non-starter. It was a bad movie, it's a bad idea in real life. But. A theory has been floating out there about blasting phobos and ionizing parts of the surface, which would be left in its orbital path around Mars, thus.. Creating a magnetic.. barrier around the planet.
I've heard other ideas.. Basically a giant 'sunshade' at the L2 point between Mars and the sun.. But.. All in all.. A magnetosphere is likely the LEAST of the problems in terraforming Mars. And even being the least of the problems, it's still one we can't solve currently.
As for atmosphere.. Wherever you fall on global warming.. It's taken.. What is it now? 150 years of pretty damn massive industrial activity on Earth to raise the global temp even 1 degree? There'd basically have to be some kind of runaway effect.. and then the problem is.. How do we stop it?
The one seemingly constant point.. Seems to be that anyone's bright idea about this.. One way or another involved algea. It seems to be the shining star in everything now. They say it's what we'll be eating, it'll change the atmosphere.. I expect someone will say it can be used to bring Elvis back to life soon..
My guess is, about one millennium. A thousand years to reformat Mars into a livable environment.
But after 1000 years, we'll almost certainly have orbital colonies, gigantic rotating O'Neill Cylinders that have simulated Earth-like gravity, lakes, forests, farms, and can house thousands or even millions of people.
The notion that we have to spend trillions of dollars to make Mars halfway livable is simply a romantic goal with no practical purpose other than "just to prove we can do it".
Then again, after a few hundred years, we may have (1) artificially generated gravitational fields and (2) superb shielding, and can then easily set up Earth-like settlements on Mars and other spots around the system.
I think it's possible for humans to visit Mars in the future, but overall I think it's a bad idea.
Instead humans should focus on further development of machines that can explore on our behalf.
As for permanant human settlement on Mars, I don't think it will happen. It just doesn't make any sense.
Many people assume technology will continue to advance indefinitely, but I don't think that will be the case.
I think technology is similar to population growth; it goes through boom and bust cycles.
Maybe in 1000 years, our technology will be more advanced, but it's also possible that technology will become less advanced in 1000 years.
With the issues we have - potable water, environmental contamination, declining crop yields, declining seafood stocks, desertification, sourcing sustainable energy, loss of biodiversity - I don't think we can afford to slow down our technology. Either we press on, or we let nature - war, pestilence, starvation - do the job for us. But nature is a very blunt instrument - better policy is to develop sustainable permanent energy sources, or guide to gradual downsizing & adjust to available resources IF that's what we decide to do.
With the issues we have - potable water, environmental contamination, declining crop yields, declining seafood stocks, desertification, sourcing sustainable energy, loss of biodiversity - I don't think we can afford to slow down our technology. Either we press on, or we let nature - war, pestilence, starvation - do the job for us. But nature is a very blunt instrument - better policy is to develop sustainable permanent energy sources, or guide to gradual downsizing & adjust to available resources IF that's what we decide to do.
My view is, population decline will be steep and will never return to today's level. In 200 years there will be far fewer of us. That will solve many of the issues you list, and many you do not list.
Visits to mars, I think, will be off the table, with neither the will nor the way to go. If population decline is too steep, we may lose access to some technology along the way. If the decline is gradual and comes to a halt at some point, technological advances may continue.
To provide an example of losing access to technology, if, in 200 years, there were a Carrington Event which destroyed electrical infrastructure worldwide there may no longer be enough young, trained workers to put it all back together before starvation reduced population to the point that electrical infrastructure could no longer be salvaged at all.
Eruption of Yellowstone supervolcano would probably have the same effect.
Visiting Mars and colonizing Mars are entirely different feats obviously. I assumed this was about simply visiting Mars but on the subject of actually colonizing Mars, before that could ever happen we would need to be generally space faring IMO easily going about the inner planets without issue.
Assuming we get to that point, we would need to have a space station capable of traveling to and orbiting Mars (I suppose we could assemble it in Mars orbit as well but seems more complicated than building it in Earth orbit and moving it). It would need to have industrial level docking capability able to receive heavy equipment transport from both Earth and Mars surfaces which is a huge obstacle for something like this. I do not think the “fire and forget” approach would work where we send a bunch of supplies in separate missions to the surface, then put some people there in a dwelling to assemble the materials and do that in perpetuity. I view it more like a mining operation where people do their shifts and come back to the space station to get power infrastructure, water infrastructure, breathable air, mining/excavating equipment, food buildings, etc.
Anyway we could control our environment much easier in a space station as we start the process of building out the necessary infrastructure on the surface for habitation. In my mind it would work like a supply chain - we would build/design what is needed here or on the moon if that becomes and intermediary because it is easier and more cost effective, ship it up into space - ship it through space - ship it down to the surface. I am not sure how valid the concepts of space elevators via tethering are but if they are possible they would make a lot of sense for something like this. That would drastically streamline our ability to ship materials and people to/from the surfaces of both planets.
Visiting Mars and colonizing Mars are entirely different feats obviously. I assumed this was about simply visiting Mars but on the subject of actually colonizing Mars, before that could ever happen we would need to be generally space faring IMO easily going about the inner planets without issue.
Assuming we get to that point, we would need to have a space station capable of traveling to and orbiting Mars (I suppose we could assemble it in Mars orbit as well but seems more complicated than building it in Earth orbit and moving it). It would need to have industrial level docking capability able to receive heavy equipment transport from both Earth and Mars surfaces which is a huge obstacle for something like this. I do not think the “fire and forget” approach would work where we send a bunch of supplies in separate missions to the surface, then put some people there in a dwelling to assemble the materials and do that in perpetuity. I view it more like a mining operation where people do their shifts and come back to the space station to get power infrastructure, water infrastructure, breathable air, mining/excavating equipment, food buildings, etc.
Anyway we could control our environment much easier in a space station as we start the process of building out the necessary infrastructure on the surface for habitation. In my mind it would work like a supply chain - we would build/design what is needed here or on the moon if that becomes and intermediary because it is easier and more cost effective, ship it up into space - ship it through space - ship it down to the surface. I am not sure how valid the concepts of space elevators via tethering are but if they are possible they would make a lot of sense for something like this. That would drastically streamline our ability to ship materials and people to/from the surfaces of both planets.
Space elevators are science fiction today, but very smart minds are working on moving them to the realm of the possible. This Nasa article from the year 2000 suggests it will be possible by the end of the 21st Century. This consortium for a space elevator believes it can be done in 15 years. But who really knows?
SpaceX has pointed the way to a much more affordable launch system so we are approaching the economics of an elevator without the massive engineering and construction expense of a 50-mile cable into orbit.
I believe you are correct, as far as supplying a Mars habitat; we will send dozens of robotic shipments to Mars which will land near the site, perhaps be met on the surface by mobile robots that will take the supplies to the habitat and construct the habitat, and finally humans will arrive.
The Martian, a 2015 movie starring Matt Damon, is a fairly realistic look at what a habitat on Mars would be like. The book, in my opinion, was better, as is usually the case with "hard science fiction" stories.
Has anyone even considered how huge a difference in distance there is between us and the moon, and us and Mars?
People are avoiding all the most important factors and challenges, and acting like physics and natural laws do not exist. What's next, landing a group of people on the sun? Just speak the words, and it's a possibility?
Last edited by Thoreau424; 02-07-2023 at 02:48 PM..
Has anyone even considered how huge a difference in distance there is between us and the moon, and us and Mars?
People are avoiding all the most important factors and challenges, and acting like physics and natural laws do not exist. What's next, landing a group of people on the sun? Just speak the words, and it's a possibility?
That is why we have to create habitable space in orbit and be generally space faring. The science is there but we need political will to make it a reality. There will be a city on the moon before mars IMO because it will be our proving ground. Things like solar power, well, the radiation issues make power better on the moon and the fact that it is tidally locked can make that profitable. The moon is our next destination.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shaping means to ends
