Mars today is a cold barren landscape of dust storms and sub-Antarctic temperatures. Not exactly the kind of place you would want to colonize humans. A process known as terraforming may change all that.
Terraforming, or altering an extraterrestrial environment to make it more like Earth, is one of the possible solutions for expanding a human presence into space and across the solar system. You take an inhospitable planet or moon and turn into a place that can support human life without the need of a pressurized living area; the living area is the planet. The process of terraforming involves several steps:
1. Thickening the atmosphere (it is highly desirable to have a thick atmosphere already in place.)
2. Warming the planet's surface, whether it be with the aid of gigantic orbital mirrors of greenhouse gases.
3. Releasing water on the planet if it is not already present.
4. Using microorganisms to change the chemical composition of the atmosphere to something humans can breathe (i.e. oxygen, nitrogen, etc.)
5. Eventually, cultivating plants to further purify the atmosphere and get the planetary body ready for human habitation.
Making an atmosphere that is thin and weak into one like Earth's would require huge amounts of gases to be emitted. On Mars, an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide, (which could later be converted into oxygen through photosynthesis), is available in a frozen state within the polar ice caps. Heating these ice caps with reflected sunlight from orbital mirrors liberates carbon dioxide gas that would be used to thicken the atmosphere. Although carbon dioxide exists in the ice on Mars, not enough is present to amply increase the density of the atmosphere. This is where comets come in. Comets flying through the solar system are known to contain vast quantities of water and pent up gases. Smashing one of these comets onto the surface of an uninhabited Mars would release millions of cubic meters of hydrogen and other gases, such as water vapor. No, smashing a comet into Mars would not "destroy" the planet (the mass of a comet is far too small to be of any concern to a planet). How do you get a comet to impact Mars? Simple: you divert it with an ion propulsion drive years ahead of time.
Turning the sub-Arctic temperatures of Mars into something more reminiscent of Bali or Brazil would most likely require the notorious demon of our time, global warming. Now here is a case where global warming is actually good: if Mars was covered in greater quantities of carbon dioxide, which in itself is a greenhouse gas, planetary warming would start to occur almost instantly. Soon you have increased the air temperature to a balmy 25 degrees Celsius and your thinking your next vacation should be on Mars. Warm air and sunlight favors the growth of photosynthetic microorganisms, their waste product being oxygen. So in the end, the warming makes both the humans and the microorganisms happy, a win-win situation.
Obviously, water would be a necessary component for the eventual human colonization of Mars. As mentioned earlier, comets impacting the Martian surface would release huge amounts of water vapor. Water vapor in the atmosphere eventually condenses into clouds which later rain down on the planet. The freeing of carbon dioxide from the polar ice caps would also flood Mars with trillions of gallons of water. NASA satellite imagery shows what appear to be river channels draining into lowing lying areas. Where does the water from these rivers now hide? The ice caps of course, but possibly inches beneath the soil. If the frozen water present on Mars in liberal quantities was unleashed by melting, a multi-million year drought would end.
What good is an atmosphere if you can't breathe it? Here's where those microorganisms come in. It is believed that the atmosphere of early Earth became what it is today with the help of bacteria and algae in water. In a chain reaction, promoting the growth of life on Mars would cause carbon dioxide to be used, and oxygen to be created. After many years, enough oxygen has built up in the atmosphere (along with other gases) for humans to move in.
Centuries after the first steps at terraforming Mars, human habitation would be possible without the need of complex, pressurized colonies or cities. Plants and trees grown in the Martian soil (which would have since been transformed in something more hospitable because of the breakdown of billions of microorganisms) would make the planet much more attractive and inviting. In the fine Martian climate, people would be able to explore the vastness of Olympus Mons and the depth of Valles Marineris. Terraforming is a surefire way to spread the human race across not only the solar system, but the galaxy as well.
After reading this, you still may ask: Why would we want to colonize Mars? Well, for one thing, a single cataclysmic event on Earth, such as nuclear detonation or massive plague, could completely wipe out the human race in months. I myself would prefer to have the comfort that humanity would continue even if a disaster occurred on our home planet. Another reason for colonization is economic and scientific profit. Who knows what kind of metals, medicines, and machinery could be manufactured in a third of the gravity of Earth? The real question to ask is: Why not colonize Mars?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ok, I shall play devil's advocate. Please don't be offended =)
First, your plan for increasing the levels of carbon dioxide and water vapor on Mars is utterly unrealistic. According to your post, it would be "simple" to change the course of a few comets, smashing them into Mars and causing the release of millions of cubic meters of gas. However, this scheme has several flaws. First, in order to divert an object as massive as a comet with an ion-propulsion drive, the comet must be "captured" while it is still many millions of miles away from Mars. The technology required to accomplish this action is currently far beyond the reach (and payroll) of modern scientists. The ion drive would have to be programmed to arrive at an exact location in space several years in advance of its arrival, and there wouldn't be any second chances - if the package missed the comet, the differences in velocity would preclude a second attempt with the same unit. It would also be impossible to program the drive accurately enough to impact the comet on the first try because of the many variables associated with space travel - the package could be set off course by barely 1/10 of a degree, for example, by the nearby passage of an asteroid's gravitational field, but this slight aberration would result in a deviation of thousands of miles by the time the guidance package reached the comet. Hence, there is a high likelihood of a complete mission failure, accompanied by the waste of billions of dollars and valuable technological components. And even if the mission succeeds - what then? Surely one comet cannot provide the billions of tons of vapor and carbon dioxide that would be required to make Mars habitable for any form of life. The mission would have to be repeated several times at least, and the impact of multiple large comets on Mars cannot be healthy for the planet's geography as a whole. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you serch for a new method if you wish to increase the quantities of desirable gases on Mars' surface.
Second, your stipulation that water can be found "inches beneath the soil" on Mars is exaggerated at best, completely false at worst. The Mars rovers certainly would have discovered water if it existed so near to the planet's surface, but they did not. And even if some water was found, there is not likely to be enough water on the entire planet to support a large human population.
Second, your plan speaks of plants to break down atmospheric carbon dioxide as well as microorganisms to enrich the infertile soil of Mars. From where, exactly, are these plants and microorganisms going to come? Huge shipments of living material would have to be made to Mars in order to create a self-sustaining environment. These shipments would be hugely expensive, of course, and they would have a low probability of success due to the periodic sandstorms that ravage the surface of Mars periodically. These storms would certainly destroy any embryonic ecosystem in their paths, and their threat is likely to preclude the entire idea of terraforming Mars at all. Finally, some sort of "base of operations" would have to be established on Mars in order to receive these shipments of organisms. This base would need to contain an "occupation force" of humans to administer all terraforming policies. However, any base established before the terraforming of the planet was complete would not only be extremely expensive to maintain but extremely dangerous to inhabit as well. Therefore, your proposal is trapped within circular logic - you cannot terraform without humans, and you cannot have humans without terraforming.
I have more to say, but I have to go now, my sis needs the computer, so I'll save the rest of my stunning insight for my rebuttal to your inevitable counter-argument.
Thank you for posting this, it gave me something to do for a few minutes. =)
Hardrockfan, your arguments are not unfounded. There could certainly be a failure in programming an ionic propulsion system, but please keep in mind that if terraforming ever gets the go ahead by world governments, only the most sophisticated computers would be used. I am talking computers that would be able to predict the outcome of complex systems in which millions, if not billions, of variables have to be accounted for. And you are right when you say that one comet could not provide enough water vapor and other compounds. This has problem has been identified by many scientists in the past, but do keep in mind the sheer volume of the materials contained within comets. The trillions of comets that lie within the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud would surely be in the grasp of a society that would consider terraforming in the first place. Remember, I am not advocating that humans could start terraforming tomorrow; maybe in 50 years, but not tomorrow.
In a future society that no longer uses chemical rockets, recieving microorganisms and plant seeds would not be far off. If companies like LiftPort and others have their way, a space elevator constructed from carbon nanotubes could lower the cost of reaching space by hundreds of millions of dollars. Also take into account that right now dozens of companies across America and Europe are desinging, building, and testing private commercial spacecraft (no aid from governments). An example of this is Virgin Galactic, founded by the billionaire Richard Branson. Branson's company, that is set to launch its first "tourists" in 2008, has recieved thousands of $200,000 deposits for tickets to space. Reaching space currently costs over 20 million dollars through government agencies. It is almost certain that within the next 20 years, the cost of reaching space will lower to around several thousand dollars per person.
In response to your argument on water, take a look at the service Google Mars if you haven't already. "North" of the enormous canyon Valles Marineris, you will see what is almost unmistakably a river channel draining into a low area (a dried up sea?) Although some of the water that once filled this riverbed may have evaporated into space, the vast quantites stored in the polar ice caps would be enough to supply humans with a nearly inexhaustable resource. We are both familiar with the doomsday calls that polar ice caps here on Earth will raise sea levels by three feet. An extra three feet of water on the Earth's oceans is certainly enough to cover a large portion of the Martian surface.
Sandstorms on Mars would be mostly eliminated with the introduction of liquid water to the planet's surface. Plants could be placed in protected in environments (i.e. canyons, craters, etc.) and given reflected sunlight until climatic conditions became more stable.
You make a compelling argument, and I can't wait to see the rest of your "stunning insight".
I know you used your "stunning insight" to play the devil's advocate over five months ago, but I have noticed some inacuracies and mistakes in your argument. You say that a probe attached to a comet would easily, and almost certainly, deviate from its course. If this was true, space exploration would, quite simply, be a complete failure. The Voyager and Pioneer probes sent to the outer planets years ago did not deviate "thousands of miles off course" and they were much more susceptible to gravitational influences than asteroids are. Besides, most asteroids are only a few hundred feet across, and have essentially no gravitational field. Another thing is that asteroids are so far apart from each other that the chance of one asteroid being within visual range of another asteroid, is, again, essentially zero.
Consider the asteroid 17 Thetis. It has a mass of 7.6 times 10 to the 17th kilograms. Surely an asteroid with that much mass would significantly alter the atmosphere of a planet, the impact releasing vast amounts of energy and gases. If you didn't want to ruin the "geography of Mars", the asteroid could skim through the atmosphere and burn up.
There is enough water in the polar ice caps of Mars to cover much of the planet in an ocean 11 meters deep. Using orbital Mylar mirrors to melt the ice would create immense floods that would sweep across the planet with life-sustaining water. "Not enough water", right...
A few hundred pounds of genetically-engineered photosynthetic microorganisms could be used to seed Mars with life. If a few hundred pounds of microorganisms is not enough, why not build an autonomous space station in orbit around Mars and manufacture the bacteria there?
Who says a base of operations would need to be established? If it was necessary to have a base of operations, it would be much more feasible to build the base as a station in orbit.
The next time you decide to play the devil's advocate, consider my stunning rebuttal.
Post a Comment