4 ms·

Terraforming Mars may be easier than scientists thought

30 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

Rhapso 2y ago
They haven't even actually made the nanoparticles yet, so lets see that and a manufacture process that only has reusable reagents before we get too excited.
tuatoru 2y ago
Yeah, because things we know very little about always turn out to be easier than thought.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > things we know very little about always turn out to be easier than thought I mean, yes. Sometimes. Wrap this rock in a wire and you’ll have a radio is not exactly what you’d expect.
  - soperj 2y ago
    go on....
    - tuatoru 2y ago
      Nuclear fusion would be the canonical case. Closer to home, making cars self-driving, and making actually useful pedestrian robots are good examples of "easier than we thought" too.
  - Nifty3929 2y ago
    Pretty sure you made GP's point here. Wrapping a wire around a rock does not yield a radio.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Pretty sure you made GP's point here. Wrapping a wire around a rock does not yield a radio It's a tongue-in-cheek description of a crystal radio [1]. If anything, most technology is developed before we understand how it works. Theory driving application is a somewhat recent phenomenon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio
nickhodge 2y ago
[flagged]
fcsp 2y ago
First thought was this was about the acclaimed board game that is on my to-do list
andrewflnr 2y ago
Breathing long spiky mineral bits seems extra bad for you. They might get you a head start on warming the planet, but there's a lot of order stuff you have to do anyway before Mars is remotely viable, and these spiky particles will then be lying on the ground forever. Is that worth it?
- sabbaticaldev 2y ago
  when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable
  - joshmarinacci 2y ago
    That will never happen. We won’t even reach 10 billion. We are leveling off already.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >That will never happen. Using natural reproduction you're correct. Never say never, though: we could massively boost the birthrate and the population by turning to artificial methods. Aldous Huxley's visionary utopian novel "Brave New World" discussed how this could be done back in 1935. Once we develop the technology to make "artificial wombs", we won't need natural reproduction any more and can create as many new people as we want.
      - defrost 2y ago
        But why ? Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population, particularly when they'll need to be supported with supply pipelines so well crafted there's no margin of error that doesn't kill a few million (less than 1 percent!!). I get the techno sci fi "because we can" argument, where's the grounded rationale?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Buy why ? The only reason I can come up with is a dictator raising an army. In that sense, a human is a cheaper drone.
swamp40 2y ago
No mention of nuking the poles.
saltwatercowboy 2y ago
Someone call Sax Russell!
from-nibly 2y ago
Once it's easy to terraform earth we can talk about how easy it will be to terraform Mars.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Once it's easy to terraform earth What do you think anthropogenic climate change is?
  - johnea 2y ago
    anti-teraforming...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > anti-teraforming It could be argued that the early days of climate change made the most-inhabited parts of the world more livable by making winters less harsh. That said, I was mostly trying to draw attention to "once it's easy to terraform earth" being nonsense. We have the demonstrated ability to alter the Earth's climate.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    It doesn't count unless you did it on purpose.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > doesn't count unless you did it on purpose According to whom? In any case, the Montreal Convention fits the bill [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
      - andrewflnr 2y ago
        You know what, fair point.
big-green-man 2y ago
I'm honestly getting tired of these "terraforming mars" articles, anyone that's seriously looked into it knows it is not possible to change the surface such that humans can live outside. The gravity of the planet is so low that it couldn't even give you enough density with a 100% oxygen atmosphere to breathe it and live, you'd be hypoxic. And with the other things required in the atmosphere to have an earth like biome, forget about it. I have seen articles talking about using argon as a buffer gas (so we can forget about the nitrogen cycle) and all sorts of other stuff that any serious person that knows the basic details knows is just popsci candy on the order of ancient aliens. It's pretty simple: if life were viable at that location it would already be there. I can see sustaining an artificial environment there, like a fabric covering a greenhouse like area or nuclear reactors powering caves complete with agriculture, but these aren't "terraforming".
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it is not possible to change the surface such that humans can live outside Is that the stated goal? Adjusting temperature would make e.g. agriculture much easier. (It also puts us in a more-familiar domain of materials science.) > if life were viable at that location it would already be there There is no science to support this hypothesis.
  - johnea 2y ago
    There's certainly no sciernce that demonstrates that human life is viable on the surface of mars. Outsidfe of atmosperic gases, there is the issue of no vanallen belt, and thus no protection from the solar wind. Cellular damage has been demonstrated in every astronaut that has ever stayed on teh space station. Mars willbe the same. The surface is unihabitable. I've been saying for years: anyone who wants to know what it will be like to live on Mars should bury a cargo container in their back yard, and live in it for a year. Teraforming Nevada would be much more successful. But apparently even that's not on the table, as Earth destroying human behaviour has only accelerated since the Kyoto accords.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
downvotetruth 2y ago
Even if it made the surface of Mars more conducive for a while for radiation hardened plants, without a guaranteed magnetic field having the evaporated water (hydrogen) get carried away by the solar wind seems like a bigger issue.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > without a guaranteed magnetic field having the evaporated water (hydrogen) get carried away by the solar wind seems like a bigger issue This would be a problem that manifests on time scales orders of magnitudes longer than human civilisation has existed.

30 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

They haven't even actually made the nanoparticles yet, so lets see that and a manufacture process that only has reusable reagents before we get too excited.

tuatoru 2y ago

Yeah, because things we know very little about always turn out to be easier than thought.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> things we know very little about always turn out to be easier than thought I mean, yes. Sometimes. Wrap this rock in a wire and you’ll have a radio is not exactly what you’d expect.
- soperj 2y ago
  go on....
  - tuatoru 2y ago
    Nuclear fusion would be the canonical case. Closer to home, making cars self-driving, and making actually useful pedestrian robots are good examples of "easier than we thought" too.
- Nifty3929 2y ago
  Pretty sure you made GP's point here. Wrapping a wire around a rock does not yield a radio.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Pretty sure you made GP's point here. Wrapping a wire around a rock does not yield a radio It's a tongue-in-cheek description of a crystal radio [1]. If anything, most technology is developed before we understand how it works. Theory driving application is a somewhat recent phenomenon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio

nickhodge 2y ago

[flagged]

fcsp 2y ago

First thought was this was about the acclaimed board game that is on my to-do list

andrewflnr 2y ago

Breathing long spiky mineral bits seems extra bad for you. They might get you a head start on warming the planet, but there's a lot of order stuff you have to do anyway before Mars is remotely viable, and these spiky particles will then be lying on the ground forever. Is that worth it?

sabbaticaldev 2y ago
when we have 100billion people on earth it will be inevitable
- joshmarinacci 2y ago
  That will never happen. We won’t even reach 10 billion. We are leveling off already.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >That will never happen. Using natural reproduction you're correct. Never say never, though: we could massively boost the birthrate and the population by turning to artificial methods. Aldous Huxley's visionary utopian novel "Brave New World" discussed how this could be done back in 1935. Once we develop the technology to make "artificial wombs", we won't need natural reproduction any more and can create as many new people as we want.
    - defrost 2y ago
      But why ? Is there any conceivable advantage to overstuffing the planet with an excess of population, particularly when they'll need to be supported with supply pipelines so well crafted there's no margin of error that doesn't kill a few million (less than 1 percent!!). I get the techno sci fi "because we can" argument, where's the grounded rationale?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Buy why ? The only reason I can come up with is a dictator raising an army. In that sense, a human is a cheaper drone.

swamp40 2y ago

No mention of nuking the poles.

saltwatercowboy 2y ago

Someone call Sax Russell!

from-nibly 2y ago

Once it's easy to terraform earth we can talk about how easy it will be to terraform Mars.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Once it's easy to terraform earth What do you think anthropogenic climate change is?
- johnea 2y ago
  anti-teraforming...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > anti-teraforming It could be argued that the early days of climate change made the most-inhabited parts of the world more livable by making winters less harsh. That said, I was mostly trying to draw attention to "once it's easy to terraform earth" being nonsense. We have the demonstrated ability to alter the Earth's climate.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  It doesn't count unless you did it on purpose.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > doesn't count unless you did it on purpose According to whom? In any case, the Montreal Convention fits the bill [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
    - andrewflnr 2y ago
      You know what, fair point.

big-green-man 2y ago

I'm honestly getting tired of these "terraforming mars" articles, anyone that's seriously looked into it knows it is not possible to change the surface such that humans can live outside. The gravity of the planet is so low that it couldn't even give you enough density with a 100% oxygen atmosphere to breathe it and live, you'd be hypoxic. And with the other things required in the atmosphere to have an earth like biome, forget about it. I have seen articles talking about using argon as a buffer gas (so we can forget about the nitrogen cycle) and all sorts of other stuff that any serious person that knows the basic details knows is just popsci candy on the order of ancient aliens. It's pretty simple: if life were viable at that location it would already be there. I can see sustaining an artificial environment there, like a fabric covering a greenhouse like area or nuclear reactors powering caves complete with agriculture, but these aren't "terraforming".

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it is not possible to change the surface such that humans can live outside Is that the stated goal? Adjusting temperature would make e.g. agriculture much easier. (It also puts us in a more-familiar domain of materials science.) > if life were viable at that location it would already be there There is no science to support this hypothesis.
- johnea 2y ago
  There's certainly no sciernce that demonstrates that human life is viable on the surface of mars. Outsidfe of atmosperic gases, there is the issue of no vanallen belt, and thus no protection from the solar wind. Cellular damage has been demonstrated in every astronaut that has ever stayed on teh space station. Mars willbe the same. The surface is unihabitable. I've been saying for years: anyone who wants to know what it will be like to live on Mars should bury a cargo container in their back yard, and live in it for a year. Teraforming Nevada would be much more successful. But apparently even that's not on the table, as Earth destroying human behaviour has only accelerated since the Kyoto accords.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago

downvotetruth 2y ago

Even if it made the surface of Mars more conducive for a while for radiation hardened plants, without a guaranteed magnetic field having the evaporated water (hydrogen) get carried away by the solar wind seems like a bigger issue.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> without a guaranteed magnetic field having the evaporated water (hydrogen) get carried away by the solar wind seems like a bigger issue This would be a problem that manifests on time scales orders of magnitudes longer than human civilisation has existed.