3 ms·

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 tha

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
    >Cellular damage has been demonstrated in every astronaut that has ever stayed on teh space station. Yep, I really feel sorry for the poor suckers who flew up to the ISS on that p-o-s Boeing Starliner. They thought they'd only be up there for 8 days, not enough for significant physical problems to develop. Instead, it's now been 2 months, and they're now saying they might be stuck there until February!
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > no sciernce that demonstrates that human life is viable on the surface of mars Nobody claimed as much. You said "if life were viable [on Mars] it would already be there." To the degree we have science around this question, it seems to support the notion that transplanted Earth life could survive on Mars [1][2]. > Cellular damage has been demonstrated in every astronaut that has ever stayed on teh space station. Mars willbe the same. The surface is unihabitable. Cellular damage has been detected in every person who has ever been tested because that's how multicellular life works. You're not wrong about space being harsh. But you're again getting ahead of the science. We don't have real data on how human bodies work in partial gravity and partially-shielded extraterrestrial radiation environments. Anyone saying conclusively that Mars (or LEO or the Moon) is long-term habitable or uninhabitable is not speaking to the science. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-designer-plants-on-mars/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-designer-plants-on-ma... [2] https://www.sciencealert.com/this-plant-is-so-extreme-scientists-think-it-could-thrive-on-mars https://www.sciencealert.com/this-plant-is-so-extreme-scient...
- big-green-man 2y ago
  Mars is ~2x the distance from the sun as earth, which means about a quarter of the sun's energy reaches the surface there as does here. I don't think agriculture outside there is very viable with or without a thick atmosphere or a warmer environment, there simply isn't enough energy hitting the leaves of the plants for them to survive. But even then, I would think yes, the purpose of transforming a planet to be earth like enough to support earth life would include allowing for people to go outside on the surface. Youre right that statement isn't falsifiable, but from my perspective, everywhere that we know life is possible it exists, it's not a stretch to draw that conclusion.

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
  >Cellular damage has been demonstrated in every astronaut that has ever stayed on teh space station. Yep, I really feel sorry for the poor suckers who flew up to the ISS on that p-o-s Boeing Starliner. They thought they'd only be up there for 8 days, not enough for significant physical problems to develop. Instead, it's now been 2 months, and they're now saying they might be stuck there until February!
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > no sciernce that demonstrates that human life is viable on the surface of mars Nobody claimed as much. You said "if life were viable [on Mars] it would already be there." To the degree we have science around this question, it seems to support the notion that transplanted Earth life could survive on Mars [1][2]. > Cellular damage has been demonstrated in every astronaut that has ever stayed on teh space station. Mars willbe the same. The surface is unihabitable. Cellular damage has been detected in every person who has ever been tested because that's how multicellular life works. You're not wrong about space being harsh. But you're again getting ahead of the science. We don't have real data on how human bodies work in partial gravity and partially-shielded extraterrestrial radiation environments. Anyone saying conclusively that Mars (or LEO or the Moon) is long-term habitable or uninhabitable is not speaking to the science. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-designer-plants-on-mars/ https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-designer-plants-on-ma... [2] https://www.sciencealert.com/this-plant-is-so-extreme-scientists-think-it-could-thrive-on-mars https://www.sciencealert.com/this-plant-is-so-extreme-scient...
big-green-man 2y ago
Mars is ~2x the distance from the sun as earth, which means about a quarter of the sun's energy reaches the surface there as does here. I don't think agriculture outside there is very viable with or without a thick atmosphere or a warmer environment, there simply isn't enough energy hitting the leaves of the plants for them to survive. But even then, I would think yes, the purpose of transforming a planet to be earth like enough to support earth life would include allowing for people to go outside on the surface. Youre right that statement isn't falsifiable, but from my perspective, everywhere that we know life is possible it exists, it's not a stretch to draw that conclusion.