4 ms·

My understanding is that Mars has a dead core and no magnetic field, meaning severe problems with radiation, and even if we melted icecaps and thickened the atm

by lukifer 12y ago

My understanding is that Mars has a dead core and no magnetic field, meaning severe problems with radiation, and even if we melted icecaps and thickened the atmosphere, Mars' lower gravity and lack of a magnetic barrier to solar wind would lead to gas particles escaping to space, and the atmosphere eventually thinning again.

arrrg 12y ago
I think that eventually would be measured in centuries or more. If we are able to solve the engineering challenge of terraforming Mars in the first place this kind of continual housekeeping won’t be an issue.
- rdl 12y ago
  I wasn't thinking anything this ambitious. We can keep people alive in the crushing depths of the oceans for weeks/months/years at a time; the real limits there seem to be economic. We could do the same thing for tens or hundreds of people on Mars if we really wanted to. Living indoors/underground most of the time, dependent upon certain things being supplied from Earth (but otherwise some kind of closed cycle or local production for anything bulky), etc.
ufmace 12y ago
I lean towards the pessimistic side of humanity's future in space, but I don't see that being a practical problem. If we manage to figure out a way to create a viable atmosphere on Mars, it ought to be a relatively trivial add-on to supply enough atmospheric gasses to make up for losses to solar radiation.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  That isn't even an add-on. In order to get from current atmosphere to breathable atmosphere, you already have to overcome the stripping effect of the solar wind, plus an additional amount. All you have to do is throttle the system back to just the replacement rate. It would require a continual energy investment, but as long as the lights can stay on, everyone can still breathe. In the extreme long term, Mars may be a good place to try a planet-wide artificial magnetosphere, using high-temperature superconducting materials. That's a rather hefty bit of engineering for a planet that currently has no humans on it.

by lukifer 12y ago

arrrg 12y ago

I think that eventually would be measured in centuries or more. If we are able to solve the engineering challenge of terraforming Mars in the first place this kind of continual housekeeping won’t be an issue.

rdl 12y ago
I wasn't thinking anything this ambitious. We can keep people alive in the crushing depths of the oceans for weeks/months/years at a time; the real limits there seem to be economic. We could do the same thing for tens or hundreds of people on Mars if we really wanted to. Living indoors/underground most of the time, dependent upon certain things being supplied from Earth (but otherwise some kind of closed cycle or local production for anything bulky), etc.

ufmace 12y ago

I lean towards the pessimistic side of humanity's future in space, but I don't see that being a practical problem. If we manage to figure out a way to create a viable atmosphere on Mars, it ought to be a relatively trivial add-on to supply enough atmospheric gasses to make up for losses to solar radiation.

logfromblammo 12y ago
That isn't even an add-on. In order to get from current atmosphere to breathable atmosphere, you already have to overcome the stripping effect of the solar wind, plus an additional amount. All you have to do is throttle the system back to just the replacement rate. It would require a continual energy investment, but as long as the lights can stay on, everyone can still breathe. In the extreme long term, Mars may be a good place to try a planet-wide artificial magnetosphere, using high-temperature superconducting materials. That's a rather hefty bit of engineering for a planet that currently has no humans on it.