8 ms·

Without tectonics, is terraforming Mars even possible as a long term solution? This "Mars colonization" strategy seems like a pipe dream, no?

by codq 1y ago

SJC_Hacker 1y ago
Tectonics isn’t the issue There would be little point in terraforming Mars. There’s plenty of places on Earth to terraform
- dismalaf 1y ago
  The whole point of Mars (or any other second planet) is redundancy. If something happens to earth we have a backup plan, as a species.
  - fuzztester 1y ago
    >The whole point of Mars (or any other second planet) is redundancy. No. It's some combination of cowardice, greed and ego, by those involved. You can bet your ass those guys are not thinking about saving the species. Lol. Furthest thing from their minds. Solve the Earth's problems on Earth instead, no need to run off to Mars. That's just kicking the can down the road.
    - dismalaf 1y ago
      > those guys Who do you think are "those guys"? Talking Musk? NASA? All the people who have dreamt of traveling the stars the last 100 years? Remember, we landed on the moon before Elon Musk was born. He's also not the first to talk about landing or living on Mars. And it's not to hedge against us destroying the planet. It's to hedge against an asteroid or other occurrence we can't control.
      - ngcazz 1y ago
        Musk has a proven track record of using govt subsidies to fund companies to enrich himself immeasurably, and his Nazi turn proves that personal enrichment, not technological advancement, is what is at stake. I don't mean to be preachy but anyone who is providing support for the most racist and perfidious elements of society in Germany and the UK should be disavowed in the strongest terms.
        dismalaf 1y ago
        Wow Musk really lives rent free in your head eh? My comment literally about the fact that space travel predates Musk's ambitions by generations, and y'all just double down... Fun fact, the first person to mention colonising other planets is John Wilkens in the 17th century. I'm sure you'll find a way to connect that to Musk though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    There isn't anything that can happen to Earth that would make it worse than Mars.
- pizzathyme 1y ago
  Agree. But my understanding is the main idea is Mars is supposed to be a "backup" for humanity in the event of a very-low-probability catastrophic event on earth (total nuclear war, solar flare, meteorite collision). In our lifetimes, unlikely. Over the next 1 million years? Maybe.
  - noir_lord 1y ago
    I’m of the opinion we’ll just do massive structures in space, lifting out of a gravity well just doesn’t make sense, if you can manufacture in space and we know there is a tonne of resources off plant in the solar system I don’t see why terraforming a plant is the smart play.
    - tehjoker 1y ago
      I believe the TV show "The 100" experimented with this idea. The inhabitants of the orbiting colonies wait out the contamination of Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_(TV_series)
    - BurningFrog 1y ago
      That makes sense, but it can easily take a century to get that production ready. Meanwhile, SpaceX is preparing to start prepping Mars colonization in a few years. I know, Elon's timelines always break. But his insane goals are also always reached after considerable delays.
      - collingreen 1y ago
        My cat always comes when it's called. Not right away though.
  - danielheath 1y ago
    AFAIK - of those, collision is the only one which could plausibly make earth less habitable than a substantially terraformed mars.
- tomxor 1y ago
  > There’s plenty of places on Earth to terraform I'm going to steal this.
- Lerc 1y ago
  Are there? Most places on earth have an established environment. There are things living in some very hostile to human areas.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    Yeah I don't think we could terraform large pieces of Earth without throwing a very serious wrench into things. The Sahara fertilizes the Amazon, right? So even a nearly lifeless desert isn't acceptable. Maybe the poles?
- dotnet00 1y ago
  If we fuck up terraforming Mars, it's bad, but not ecological collapse level bad. On the other hand, we're already fucking up terraforming Earth.
- ozb 1y ago
  Heh, apparently ChatGPT gets touchy when you explore creative ways to make earth less inhabitable than Mars, especially around pathogens and grey goo > content removed > <red> This content may violate our terms of use or usage policies
BlaDeKke 1y ago
Was it ever anything else then a dream?
eru 1y ago
The lack of tectonics would only be a problem if you want your terraforming to be 'one and done'. If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort, it's simple (but not easy). Eg you can use satellites to spin up an artificial magnetic field to shield against solar wind. However, I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch (eg out of asteroids), than to go down another gravity well. You can spin them for artificial 'gravity'. And you can situate them close to earth where logistics of resupply and communication and trade are much more favourable. Otherwise, Mercury is the planet to colonise, not Mars. Mercury gets extremely hot in the sun, and extremely cold at night. So if you dig a bit under the surface it all evens out. Pick the right latitude, and you can get basically any average temperature you feel like, including a comfortable 20C. (Otherwise, even on the surface it's easy to get comfy temperatures, if you bring retractable parasols. Just don't expect to stroll around outside the base.) Mercury has the benefit compared to Mars that solar power is extremely plentiful.
- mixmastamyk 1y ago
  The Moon has zones like you describe on Mercury, and is a lot closer to colonize. Lack of large magnetic field probably won’t matter as terraforming either is hopeless.
  - eru 1y ago
    Yes, you can also do a similar strategy on the moon. You can in principle create artificial magnetic fields. But yeah, you are better off just staying indoors most of the time under a big fat layer of regolith.
- kulahan 1y ago
  It's worth mentioning that one of the more sane ways to terraform a planet is to redirect specific comets to crash into the planet. It would be "free" in the sense that redirecting an orbit is already actively being studied by NASA for planetary defense reasons. To actually terraform a planet in this method would be unreasonably affordable compared to anything else I've ever heard. edit: Plus, it's nice to split our eggs into multiple planetary baskets. And I suspect people would feel a bit happier living on the surface of a chilly Mars than to become mole people on Mercury, even if it is easier. Maybe summer and winter homes?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Without tectonics, is terraforming Mars even possible as a long term solution? This "Mars colonization" strategy seems like a pipe dream, no?

by codq 1y ago

Without tectonics, is terraforming Mars even possible as a long term solution? This "Mars colonization" strategy seems like a pipe dream, no?

SJC_Hacker 1y ago

Tectonics isn’t the issue There would be little point in terraforming Mars. There’s plenty of places on Earth to terraform

dismalaf 1y ago
The whole point of Mars (or any other second planet) is redundancy. If something happens to earth we have a backup plan, as a species.
- fuzztester 1y ago
  >The whole point of Mars (or any other second planet) is redundancy. No. It's some combination of cowardice, greed and ego, by those involved. You can bet your ass those guys are not thinking about saving the species. Lol. Furthest thing from their minds. Solve the Earth's problems on Earth instead, no need to run off to Mars. That's just kicking the can down the road.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    > those guys Who do you think are "those guys"? Talking Musk? NASA? All the people who have dreamt of traveling the stars the last 100 years? Remember, we landed on the moon before Elon Musk was born. He's also not the first to talk about landing or living on Mars. And it's not to hedge against us destroying the planet. It's to hedge against an asteroid or other occurrence we can't control.
    - ngcazz 1y ago
      Musk has a proven track record of using govt subsidies to fund companies to enrich himself immeasurably, and his Nazi turn proves that personal enrichment, not technological advancement, is what is at stake. I don't mean to be preachy but anyone who is providing support for the most racist and perfidious elements of society in Germany and the UK should be disavowed in the strongest terms.
      - dismalaf 1y ago
        Wow Musk really lives rent free in your head eh? My comment literally about the fact that space travel predates Musk's ambitions by generations, and y'all just double down... Fun fact, the first person to mention colonising other planets is John Wilkens in the 17th century. I'm sure you'll find a way to connect that to Musk though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  There isn't anything that can happen to Earth that would make it worse than Mars.
pizzathyme 1y ago
Agree. But my understanding is the main idea is Mars is supposed to be a "backup" for humanity in the event of a very-low-probability catastrophic event on earth (total nuclear war, solar flare, meteorite collision). In our lifetimes, unlikely. Over the next 1 million years? Maybe.
- noir_lord 1y ago
  I’m of the opinion we’ll just do massive structures in space, lifting out of a gravity well just doesn’t make sense, if you can manufacture in space and we know there is a tonne of resources off plant in the solar system I don’t see why terraforming a plant is the smart play.
  - tehjoker 1y ago
    I believe the TV show "The 100" experimented with this idea. The inhabitants of the orbiting colonies wait out the contamination of Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100_(TV_series)
  - BurningFrog 1y ago
    That makes sense, but it can easily take a century to get that production ready. Meanwhile, SpaceX is preparing to start prepping Mars colonization in a few years. I know, Elon's timelines always break. But his insane goals are also always reached after considerable delays.
    - collingreen 1y ago
      My cat always comes when it's called. Not right away though.
- danielheath 1y ago
  AFAIK - of those, collision is the only one which could plausibly make earth less habitable than a substantially terraformed mars.
tomxor 1y ago
> There’s plenty of places on Earth to terraform I'm going to steal this.
Lerc 1y ago
Are there? Most places on earth have an established environment. There are things living in some very hostile to human areas.
- kulahan 1y ago
  Yeah I don't think we could terraform large pieces of Earth without throwing a very serious wrench into things. The Sahara fertilizes the Amazon, right? So even a nearly lifeless desert isn't acceptable. Maybe the poles?
dotnet00 1y ago
If we fuck up terraforming Mars, it's bad, but not ecological collapse level bad. On the other hand, we're already fucking up terraforming Earth.
ozb 1y ago
Heh, apparently ChatGPT gets touchy when you explore creative ways to make earth less inhabitable than Mars, especially around pathogens and grey goo > content removed > <red> This content may violate our terms of use or usage policies

BlaDeKke 1y ago

Was it ever anything else then a dream?

eru 1y ago

The lack of tectonics would only be a problem if you want your terraforming to be 'one and done'. If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort, it's simple (but not easy). Eg you can use satellites to spin up an artificial magnetic field to shield against solar wind. However, I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch (eg out of asteroids), than to go down another gravity well. You can spin them for artificial 'gravity'. And you can situate them close to earth where logistics of resupply and communication and trade are much more favourable. Otherwise, Mercury is the planet to colonise, not Mars. Mercury gets extremely hot in the sun, and extremely cold at night. So if you dig a bit under the surface it all evens out. Pick the right latitude, and you can get basically any average temperature you feel like, including a comfortable 20C. (Otherwise, even on the surface it's easy to get comfy temperatures, if you bring retractable parasols. Just don't expect to stroll around outside the base.) Mercury has the benefit compared to Mars that solar power is extremely plentiful.

mixmastamyk 1y ago
The Moon has zones like you describe on Mercury, and is a lot closer to colonize. Lack of large magnetic field probably won’t matter as terraforming either is hopeless.
- eru 1y ago
  Yes, you can also do a similar strategy on the moon. You can in principle create artificial magnetic fields. But yeah, you are better off just staying indoors most of the time under a big fat layer of regolith.
kulahan 1y ago
It's worth mentioning that one of the more sane ways to terraform a planet is to redirect specific comets to crash into the planet. It would be "free" in the sense that redirecting an orbit is already actively being studied by NASA for planetary defense reasons. To actually terraform a planet in this method would be unreasonably affordable compared to anything else I've ever heard. edit: Plus, it's nice to split our eggs into multiple planetary baskets. And I suspect people would feel a bit happier living on the surface of a chilly Mars than to become mole people on Mercury, even if it is easier. Maybe summer and winter homes?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]