Terraforming Mars

I can imagine that the moon is more useful without an atmosphere. Mars
may be more useful with a thin one. However, I see nothing wrong with
terraforming if it is given some thought.

wrote:
I can imagine that the moon is more useful without an atmosphere. Mars
may be more useful with a thin one. However, I see nothing wrong with
terraforming if it is given some thought.

I don't think the moon could ever hold much of an atmosphere, so it's a
moot point. One theory holds that mars lost its atmosphere to the
solar wind over millions of years. Without a magnetic field the same
process could undue any attempt to create a new one. Is it a good idea
if it were workable, yes. Otherwise it would be an absurd waste of
money and resources.

wrote:
Do you think it is a good idea to terraform Mars or the moon or any
other planet?

The question is premature. No rational motivation exists at this time
(though plenty of rationalizations exist). Rich western nations are unable
to even make moderate sized areas of deserts and semi-deserts on the Earth
sustain an agricultural base without huge subsidies[1], so it is safe to
say that the technological capability doesn't exist either.

However, since human population is likely to peak at ~9 billion around
2050[2] there doesn't seem to be any future motivation re population
pressure (excluding the enormous cost to move even a fraction of the human
population to the moon or another planet).

Finally, tourism and scientific research will almost certainly provoke
motivations toward minimal exploitation and changes of other planets.

[1] "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner, 1993
[2] http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/note5717.doc.htm

On 29 May 2005 19:56:26 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I can imagine that the moon is more useful without an atmosphere. Mars
may be more useful with a thin one. However, I see nothing wrong with
terraforming if it is given some thought.

I don't think the moon could ever hold much of an atmosphere, so it's a
moot point.

Sure it would. It just wouldn't do so for a long (millennia) period
of time without resupply.

On 29 May 2005 09:14:10 -0700, wrote:

Do you think it is a good idea to terraform Mars or the moon or any
other planet?

If you mean "any other planet besides Earth", I'd say the question could
not even be answered without decades of on-site study. But it's a moot point,
because it will be a century at least before we could even begin such a
project.

With respect to Earth (and alluding to the words of M. K. Gandhi) I'd say
I think it would be a good idea.

We have, in a very real sense, been terraforming planet Earth for some
time now -- and generally in ad hoc fashion.

* Mining coal, drilling for and shipping crude oil, logging forests, and
the associated waste-disposal activities, have local effects in many areas.

* Building cities affects the local temperatures. Providing those cities
with water can deplete aquifers and result in sinking ground.

* The ecological effects of wiping out native species, or introducing
foreign ones, have been much discussed.

* Insecticides and other chemicals have had profound and often unintended
effects.

Currently the "hot button" issue is global warming (or, to use the
politically correct term, global climate change.) There is little doubt that
this is happening, but the extent to which human activities are responsible
is hotly debated. (See e.g. sci.environment.)

I think human activities do play a part in global warming, and so this
comes closest to what you probably think of as terraforming: Raising the
average temperature of a world by changing its albedo or introducing
greenhouse gases.

Many think this is a bad thing to do to Earth. But in their second book,
_The Life and Death of Planet Earth_, Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee claim it
just might stave off a new ice age.

Have I confused the issue sufficiently?

Please show me the Cost Benefit Analyis and I'll tell you.
Specifically, what's the cost?

Alex Terrell wrote:

Please show me the Cost Benefit Analyis and I'll tell you.
Specifically, what's the cost?

And don't forget to include the effects of the time value
of money.

A thousand years of 5%/year interest will get just a *tad*
expensive.

Paul

Space Cadet wrote:

'destructive' ,yes
we have that down pat ;^)



You know about my solar driven photonic heat cannon, don't you?
Well, we can't have that, can we?
You might want to put on some sunblock around noon tomorrow.
Because your future's about to become so bright that you are going to
have to wear shades.
(That was a good one wasn't it, Mini-P? I can make as many "hep cat"
references as any of these kids today! No, I wasn't referring to you,
Mr. Bigglesworth...) ;-)

Pat

wrote in message
oups.com...
Do you think it is a good idea to terraform Mars or the moon or any
other planet?

Personally, I think one can get much better returns on one's investment on
much shorter timescales with the orbital habitat concepts proposed by Gerard
O'Neill.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Do you think it is a good idea to terraform Mars or the moon or any
other planet?

It's always a good idea to make a planet habitable. Trouble is if unkind
things evolve and develop, radical earthlings will be screaming 'tampering
or conspiracy' or some other stupid reaction. They might start a jihad or
liberation front and cause all kinds of ignoant damage.