Hey Karl!

Yes, it's getting real. I think the question is not whether we can terraform Mars, but rather, should we? Until we map out the planet's surface to determine what exactly is there, including precursors to life, life that was, or ultimately, life itself, and other phenomena not yet anticipated, I'd rather us not attempt to terraform. This question needs robust debate. Thoughts???

First of all, why should we? Until we have established - which scientifically is almost impossible - that Mars has no own ecosystem, we should not change that environment. Also, terraforming to what point? Mars does not have a magnetic field, i.e. any atmosphere we would create would not last. Also, the energy effort to create an atmosphere, e.g. by transporting comets to Mars and drop them to release volatiles, would be exceeding the available energy.

If we ever settle on Mars it will be using domes or even only module-based habitats for a very long time.

Hi George Cernigliaro and Volker Maiwald Thanks for your replies.

I'd support surveying what is there first and preserving samples. Also some areas of the solar system should probably remain parks for a long time. It is unlikely that we would find advanced life but we can look.

From that point, my view is that there are many rocks in the solar system and we have all our eggs in one precarious basket now. While some might say there is no special reason why we of all things whould expand to the detriment of other things, at the least I would say there also is no overriding reason not to. Were it not for evolution with its consequences the universe would be a featureless place with little value by most measures, Terran or other.

Established atmospheres take a long time to drift away, so such a thing would serve fine. As was done on Earth, we would start with outposts and develop over centuries.

For a long time even getting to the Moon was seen as impossibly hard. I suspect this is doable.

Hi Karl Sipfle,

I think that, from the standpoint of science, a program to explore Mars fully, to determine its planetary history, and the possibility that it had life, is more important than extending human life beyond Earth. I can't say, to the point of certainty, that the lack of evolution, as we've currently defined it, would make the Universe featureless and its exploration of little value. We are still learning the true limits of the Darwinian model, for which exploration of other planets would provide additional clues. Establishment of outposts is a good idea, from an exploration perspective. So, onward and upward to Mars and any other solar system object thought worthy of exploration. To your point, terraforming would take centuries if attempted, so there is much yet to learn. The one thing mankind has on our side is time. I'm not as pessimistic that life on Earth is in forseeable danger, with the exception of natural disasters, such as asteroid or comet hits. We can help ourselves with these events, as was recently shown.

Terraforming Mars, the process of transforming the planet's environment to make it hospitable for human life, would involve the following steps:

Note: Terraforming Mars is a thousand-year project and multifaceted complex process that would require significant advances in technology and a deep understanding of the Martian environment.

Technical Report Terraforming of Terrestrial Earth-Sized Planetary Bodies

Cole C. Pazar Thank you for the lovely response.

We appear to have some common interests.

I wonder if there is really nothing cheaper and easier than shipping from TItan.

Karl

George Cernigliaro Fascinating priorities! Which differ from mine.

I was speaking inclusive of physics evolution. The first moments didn't include much variety; too spare to want to stop at.

As to time, if it does take even 1,000 years to achieve survivable independence, I think the risk of something huge, global, and horrible is substantial, given humans. Even if we survive (which on first waves we would), until recently human suffering was pretty awful. Don't see an adoptable valuation that is ok with a return to that. Pain and pleasure are fundamentals in the universe.

Exactly because we are nothing in the big picture, the picture that should matter to us is our own. "Try to do no harm" is fine, as long as we don't adopt irrational definitions of harm.

Karl Sipfle,

Yes, the ideologues of the world will destroy us well before anything natural gets us. Given that, then yes, doing no harm is fine, as long as we're not crazy about the definition. Human corruptibility is far more pervasive than anyone realized, and that, more than any one thing, will be our undoing.

George Cernigliaro Agree. That's why you and I should run Mars. :) And maybe Elon.

Karl Sipfle. Let's try Elon. :-)

Dear Karl Sipfle,

In view of the scientifically proven fact that humanity is raising Earth's temperature at least by 1.5 degrees in recent years, thereby causing global warming, and that in the past humanity partially destroyed the ozone layer and then reconstructed it, I have to voice my disagreement with your off-the-cuff statement that "we are nothing in the big picture"! As my recent research papers published in 2022 indicate, my interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche's "God is dead" and prediction of the emergence of the Ubermensch ("Over-Man") argues for the above-mentioned Darwinian evolution of the archetypal Scientist who will collectively make Earth more habitable, and, possibly, find ways to render Mars inhabitable, at least on some level beyond robots, which currently seems the most likely probability.

Best regards,

Nancy Ann Watanabe

Nancy Ann Watanabe: I take issue with your assertion of the "scientifically proven fact" of humanity alone raising earth's atmospheric temperature. I suggest reading Steven Koonin's Book "Unsettled - What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why it Matters" (2021). Much of what is claimed by present climate science is proven not ot be the case (within the noise). As a result, those in power are risking much with respect to earth's economic and technical evolution. There is an element of arrogance in Nietzche's rational argument regarding the emergence of the so-called "Over-Man". I believe that human corruptibility, much of which derives from evidence-less assertions, puts us all in great danger, and that so-called progress, as we've defined it, results in a certain authoritarianism of those who think they know better than everyone else, such as who gets to decide what is a scientifically proven fact? Science is about debate of hypotheses and continued experiment and is, thus, never settled. Our Climate Activists seem not to understand this.

George Cernigliaro You bring up good points. For centuries through the present, "experts" have gotten millions killed. Whereas the motto of the Royal Society is Believe nothing you read, see for yourself.

I found some of the well-buttressed arguments in Patrice Poyet's 'Rational Climate Book' pretty good, incidentally (Patrick Moore, Judith Curry and others had made much the same points but with not so much indepth analysis).

One concern I have is that "science" has gotten a battering in the court of public opinion lately, as it's been trotted out as justification for rather questionable policies by a number of pollies who understand nothing about science....

But we're straying from the subject, aren't we?

H Chris Ransford: Yes, we haved strayed, but as you've mentioned, "science" has been battered for at least a couple of decades, primarily for political reasons. And I feel, for whatever subject, when political "science" is introduced, it should be called out. I don't like playing cop, as this and other questions are quite interesting, but let's keep it on the level. As to Martian terraforming, Karl has put a good question here. Although I disagree with Nancy's primary climate assumption, her statements were provocative and quite worth the read.

George Cernigliaro, the reason why I started writing popular science books is precisely that I feel that we, as scientists, should convey to those who don't do science its wonder, its relevance and its sheer explanatory power towards many of the issues in our lives.

But we end up in a place where the very concept, and the reputation, of 'science' has been co-opted to serve political agendas, where thinking persons with no science background might be justified in taking an increasingly dim view of this thing that very vocal society leaders call science.

(It's not new, mind you - people have been invoking 'science' for decades to further their agendas, a bit like the many fake Einstein quotes out there, intended to help buttress arguments and/or sales. Even a number of 'scientists' are guilty of this - may I recall here statements by e.g. Julien Musolino calling on people to believe him because he talks from the pulpit of Quote Real Science Unquote - although the alleged 'real science' in question here is very, very soft - zero physics, zero math.)

Society narratives are set by political elites, as they always have been. I'm reminded here of how, and why, they built the Great Wall of China. The narrative was that the Wall - a huge, sociey-wide urgent undertaking, demanding sustained exceptional effort - was needed to hold the dangerous savage hordes to the North at bay. Reality was - there was no danger whatsoever from the North, and on the one single occasion when hordes from the North actually invaded, the Wall provided no bulwark at all - it might as well not have existed at all.

It seems that the building of the Wall was deliberately engineered to channel efforts and energies and 'talk-of-the-town' towards a deliberately chosen, well- defined focus, and that it thereby diverted the commonfolk's attentions from other pursuits that may have been deemed undesirable by the then powers-that-be.

It seems to me that in our public discourses at this time, a number of Walls of China are being ceaselessly paraded, right in front of our eyes. Or am I being unduly suspicious?

With apologies to all, and Karl, for straying again from the theme - I'm looking forward to more contributions on the theme.

Thank you.

H Chris Ransford George Cernigliaro I think what is being missed here is the biggest problem is people who ARE scientists. Science is a (category of) intellectual discipline and Science is also a field of work, done by people. Sometimes the latter declare themselves the embodiment of the former, when they're not, or not well. Politicians are expected to deal with messy and complex situations and deal in influence and power. Few scientists would do that job well. In addition to extremely sloppy groupthink by scientists, is simply the case where a relatively respectable position does not stand up under personal scrutiny and consideration. I know I've certainly experienced such discoveries.

Karl

Karl Sipfle / H Chris Ransford: Eisenhower was correct in his prediction,but on a much larger scale than even he imagined. The USA is now run by a Federal Bureaucracy and not by legitimately elected Representatives, who are supposed to provide vision and direction. In such a Federal Bureaucracy, it's about self preservation, as organizational suicide is not an option. Politician's, being what they are, will not go against this, as their so-called effectiveness depends on how they navigate the Bureaucracy. Thus, Group Think all around, which includes the scientists. How does one break this in a way that doesn't collapse the Nation? Chris, in my opinion, you are not overthinking or being overly suspicious. I think this problem extends far beyond the USA (?) I wish there was a site where this problem could be discussed, as it poisons the very questions which make RG a great site. I'm sorry I brought the whole thing up. My Bad.

At first sight it seems that terraforming Mars could be extremely challenging, bordering on the no can do. We can probably give up on the idea of making Mars 'Earth lite', because the volumes and tonnage of materials involved in even remotely achieving this would seem forbidding, and then there would be extra challenges.

To begin with - the atmosphere. We need to breathe (as Pink Floyd helpfully reminded us).

The Earth's atmosphere has an overall mass of about 5 million billon metric tons - no less - made up roughly of 80% N² and 20% O². Of course only a portion of that kind of volumes would be needed on Mars (which is about half the size of Earth, with a gravity of about a third Earth's), but generating a suitable atmosphere would still presents extraordinary challenges (we could hardly try to emulate the way the atmosphere evolved on Earth, because that would take eons, and anywya it would be be less stable: even if we could generate and/or release the requisite volumes - an issue would be the absence of a strong enough magnetic field around Mars (as should be generated by flows of molten iron in the core) to deflect the steady stream of rays and particles from the sun: solar radiation (a blend of all kinds of rays) would knock atmospheric molecules off the atmosphere and send them hurtling through space, slowly but steadily stripping away whatever new atmosphere would be in place....

Which means that the only way whereby human colonies could exist and survive would seem to be within tightly 'enclosed cities', similar to the bygone Biosphere2 habitats in Arizona - experiments which did not fare too well, however.

The enclosed city scenario would require far less air and less fertile soil than an open-air scenario, but of course life would then be extremely different, it would not properly be 'terra'formed, and just how many people could it accommodate?

Another issue is that the human body would necessarily change owing to the low gravity: calcium loss would set in, etc., over time leading to different bodies altogether perhaps taller, spindlier....

Am I being too pessimistic?

H Chris Ransford Cole C. Pazar

First of all, I'm good with terraforming all of Mars.

If we assume that takes about 1,000 years, then we build domes (at which we will get very efficient especially with robots and ISRU), keeping a little portion of the new atmosphere compressed inside. If we cover (say) 1% of the planet with domes over 1000 years, that's an average of 50 sq mi / Earth month, less than 2 sq mi / Sol. Before the outside is ready, we will visit it in suits and vehicles with ever lighter demands for their equipment to cover the environmental gap.

The chief leaps may be brilliant ideas in building these shelters. Later they can be retained for ordinary shelters indefinitely.

In much less than the time required to support us outside, a food source should be able to flourish outside and the general surface will enter use. I'd imagine the beginnings of that possible in 100 years, with near-identical test runs practiced inside in the meantime.

Thoughts?

Karl

I'm actually in NASA conference right now about Mars plans (solar system data networking). That software and relay hardware will be ready by the time we land people.

Cole is working at SpaceX now.

Karl Sipfle , Terraforming is one thing. Doing it in a way that makes it able to sustain human and Earth life is another. The assumption is that the reason for terraforming would be to transplant Earth life in the terraformed location. My colleague and I just published a peer-reviewed theoretical paper in Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences on what it would take to terraform to sustain life from Earth and to specifically sustain humans. Having the material in place to do it is just one element.

The theory uses ecological thermodynamics theory, network ecology, information theory, and analytical models of self-restoring heat engines to model the dissipative structures that are required to build exergy in a functioning ecosphere. I think it would not be a surprise that there are limits. We can’t just “plant” and “grow” anywhere. Here is the link to the paper:

Article Pancosmorio (world limit) theory of the sustainability of hu...

Indeed this topic has become real investigation and no longer science fiction!