5 ms·
Do you mean terraforming Earth or Mars? Handling global warming will probably be easier than terraforming Mars.
by ejolto 9y ago
Do you mean terraforming Earth or Mars? Handling global warming will probably be easier than terraforming Mars.
- leot 9y agoeasier scientifically != easier politically
- jackmott 9y agojust need to drop a few hundred thousand comets and asteroids and mars, and mar's moon, then float a few hundred thousand giant mirrors around it to warm it up a bit, seed it with plants, wait a few thousand years. no big deal!
- lprubin 9y agoDon't forget solving the gravity disparity problem.
- jackmott 9y agodumping the comets and moons onto the surface is to help with that. But I've done some napkin math and it looks like we need ~40 billion commets to bring it halfway to earth mass...welp
- goatlover 9y agoMakes terraforming Venus look easy.
- ejolto 9y agoIf you crash the entire asteroid belt into Mars, its mass will increase by half a percent.
- jackmott 9y agoa good start! you can get most of that half of a percent with just the 4 largest asteroids. maybe we need to sacrifice our own moon.
- ejolto 9y agoIf we are moving the moon, we might as well just move the earth to a higher orbit further from the sun.
- AstralStorm 9y agoIf we had access to this kind of energy, we'd be generating and treating copious amounts of antimatter and using it to power electrical CO2 sequestration devices.
- Reason077 9y agoMars gravity, 38% of Earth's, doesn't seem like all that much of problem. Sure, there are some health risks associated with being in a low gravity environment. But considering humans survive surprisingly well in micro-gravity in space, I'm sure we can adapt to the relatively strong gravity on Mars.
- jsjohnst 9y ago> But considering humans survive surprisingly well in micro-gravity in space Source for that claim? The number of studies I’ve read (as well as conversations I’ve had with astronauts) about the health impact on astronauts who’ve been on the ISS for extended periods seems to disagree.
- CyberDildonics 9y agoIs less gravity the only difference in being on earth and being on the ISS?
- jsjohnst 9y agoGoogle would've easily found a bunch of supporting articles to what I stated, but here: https://www.space.com/23017-weightlessness.html https://www.space.com/23017-weightlessness.html https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast02aug_1 https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/a... http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/health/your-body-in-space/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/20/health/your-body-in-space/inde... https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyinspace https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/bodyinspace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body#Weightlessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_h... tl;dr version: > In space, without gravity, bones lose more than 1% of minerals and density per month. > Astronauts also experience blood volume loss, weakened immune systems and cardiovascular deconditioning since floating takes little effort and the heart doesn't have to work as hard to pump blood through your body > "It changes their visual acuity," Charles said. "They're not able to see things up close. It's like advanced aging. That sort of thing happens at a sort of an accelerated rate."
- goatlover 9y agoAdapting to and/or fixing Earth's climate is easier than terraforming Mars by an enormous amount. Mars is more inhospitable to life than the center of Antarctica during the winter. Also, it's months away in a spaceship. There's no scenario in which Mars is a viable alternative for the human race this century.
- Filligree 9y agoEarth. It's the same technology set, more or less, but aimed at cooling it down rather than heating up Mars. I suppose the best option would be carbon capture, if it isn't too expensive, but I rather suspect it would be.
- AstralStorm 9y agoIt is not too expensive if we were to use nuclear reactors to power it. (Yes, including hiked commissioning and decommissioning costs.) Combined with solar and wind for peak of course because why not. There are currently no other options. Renewables alone are not enough to even power civilization at current level. (They get somewhere shy of 60% in an impossible best case.)