[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.22 MB, 2205x2205, mars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9579054 No.9579054 [Reply] [Original]

How can we go about terraforming mars in the most efficient way possible? Do we nuke it with a really large biological weapon that will cause a similar explosion as the early cambrian to cause an Oxygen ridden atmosphere? How do we go about doing this /sci/

>> No.9579073

>>9579054
We build tents over craters and areas of land and eventually cover the vast majority of the surface of the planet.

Advantages: No ten thousand year wait time between staring the project and getting significant habitable space, no need to worry about eventual atmospheric erosion, no requirement for beyond-Earth scale industrial capability before the project can even begin

Disadvantages: None it is a better idea than terraforming in every way

>> No.9579082

>>9579073
More likely you would want to dig downwards quite far until you reach a nice warm area

>> No.9579100

>>9579082
Do you mean a warm depth?

The nice thing about craters is that if you dome them over they essentially produce a very strong heat island/greenhouse effect, so the 12hrs of sunlight Mars gets every day would be enough to keep the interior of the habitat nice and warm. For the first big habitats we'd tent over moderately sized craters near the equator because it's faster, but further north and south we'd probably devote more time to digging deep pits into craters to increase the amount geothermal heat going into the living space.

>> No.9579305

its pretty much impossible and will never be done, and if we did have some magic way to remove or add trillions of tons of mass from an atmosphere then venus would be a much better candidate for terraforming.

>> No.9579425
File: 50 KB, 634x469, 1-nasaproposes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9579425

I'd start with trying to minimize harmful radiation. You can use terrestrial VLF transmitters [1] and space-based magnetic shields (pic related) [2] to protect the planet from radiation.

[1]
>[VLF] waves may be enveloping the globe like an electromagnetic comforter, protecting it from satellite-frying space radiation
https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/19/earths-radio-signals-may-be-protecting-it-from-space-radiation/

[2]
>by positioning a magnetic dipole shield at the Mars L1 Lagrange Point, an artificial magnetosphere could be formed that would encompass the entire planet, thus shielding it from solar wind and radiation
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

>> No.9579517

>>9579425
>One object sheilds the whole planet

Sounds like I know where an enemy would attack first. There's going to need to be serious planning for that kind of thing.

>> No.9579523

>>9579517
Make several for redundancy.

>> No.9579539

>>9579517
the alternative could be a network of satellites in geosynchronous orbits (aerosynchronous?). maybe a real world system would use both L1 and geosynch orbits.

>> No.9579572

>>9579517
What would stop us from building it on the ground.

>> No.9579590

>>9579054
Why would you?

It has very little magnetic field because of its cold core, meaning there's very little protection from solar radiation.

It has a weak gravity relative to Earth, so the essential gases and water vapour would just escape the planet.

>> No.9579662

Nuke mars.

>> No.9579678

>>9579054

For a fraction of the effort we harvest asteroids and convert them into glittering fleets of Stanford tori with the same total living area as a terraformed Mars would have.

>> No.9579682

>>9579425

Is there a proper paper published about the L1 station idea? I find it most interesting. All I've been able to find are references to a conference talk.

>> No.9579696

>>9579054
The rediation kills all life in the surface. It can't be terraformed

>> No.9579702

>>9579682
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/8250.pdf

>> No.9579707

>>9579054
Build a dome pump it with oxygen?

>> No.9579739

>>9579054
>Do we nuke it with a really large biological weapon that will cause a similar explosion as the early cambrian to cause an Oxygen ridden atmosphere?
This would require a fuck tonne of liquid water and an atmosphere's worth of carbon. The water itself would need an atmosphere to keep from evaporating and a stupid amount of heat to keep from consequently freezing. And, as everyone else has pointed out, radiation shielding would be a serious problem.

None of the problems of terraforming Mars are a case of 'what should we do'; it is always 'how can we complete a task so incomprehensibly massive'. And, when you realise this will take more than a few Earth economies, that becomes 'why'.

No material benefit we can get from terraforming Mars and keeping it that way could ever pay back the cost.

Build domes and orbital cylinders instead.

>> No.9579755

>>9579702

Thanks!

>> No.9579768

>>9579054
>a really large biological weapon
how would that be a weapon?
are you going to whine about the fraudulent global warming unaware is has been occurring on Mars as well ?

how will you keep atmosphere from being stripped by the solar wind ?
you need sealed containment buildings it appears

>> No.9579771

>>9579425
can anyone imagine the size required ?
this appears to be another foolish fantasy

5 billion spacex heavy launches to build it up ?

>> No.9579773

>>9579425
>https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magnetic-shield-mars-atmosphere.html

yeah the entire article never mentions the required size just a guass calc
assholes !

>> No.9579779

>>9579572
Might be easier to build it on earth and then ship it up instead of having to build it on Mars or dropping it down onto Mars and then building it there.

Installing a magnetic shield on Mars Actual might be a good long term goal though.

>> No.9579782

>>9579054
A seriously large scaled weapon would need to be used with a very large and expensive delivery system. It doesn't seem like a very practical solution. I think it would require something far more geophysical. Mega nukes could also be disastrous to Martian terrain and cause other unwanted reactions.

>> No.9579783

>>9579771

According to the paper it doesn't have to be particularly big at all. Earth's magnetic field is extremely weak after all. Though the paper is pretty thin and seems to be a summary of a conference talk.

>> No.9579786
File: 52 KB, 322x466, nasa mars solar windshield L2 point.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9579786

>>9579702
>https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/8250.pdf
>>9579425

yeah what a shame nasa embarrasses me
10,000 to 20,000 Gauss
(fuckin tards - strength no size)
ANOTHER GOD DAMNED SCAM

>> No.9579787

>>9579773

Why do you suppose it would need to be physically large rather than just a fairly small generator very distant from Mars?

>> No.9579788

>>9579590
1% OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE

>> No.9579792

>>9579787
Well come on just think about it - that's now how anything works - something for nothing and too good to be true

>> No.9579795

>>9579787
why don't they tell us the size ?
LOL
I mean how fucking dumb do they think you are ?
YEAH YOU! NOT ME, YOU!

>> No.9579800

>>9579792

Well it's not like there are 2T dipole magnets just floating around in space. We don't know what effect they would have on the solar wind. Anyway there's no telling it would give us something for nothing. We still would have to count on the atmosphere regenerating or more likely importing CO2 from Venus in some sort of matter stream. This would only give us a pseudo-magnetosphere as a starting point.

>> No.9579802

>>9579795

They haven't worked out the size because this is just a quick calculation for a conference. This is done all the time in academia. If it plays out there will be more papers.

>> No.9579808

>>9579800
WELL NO NOT TRUE -
you shoulda read the pdf link above
melting the icecap of Mars means co2 formation and the ancient ocean arising - a 4C change is all they claim is required
u didn't read ?
LOL
this place sucks ass - it's n wonder science is absolutely filled with fraud and fantasy nowadays - even fans can't read

>> No.9579811

>>9579054
Aside from atmosphere problems there is also low gravity.
We don't have conclusive evidence but there is strong doubt that 1/3 g is enough for humans.
And if anyone start talking about centrifuges there is the right place to do that, and it isn't on a planet.

>> No.9579812

>>9579802
oh come on we know enough shit I could do it an hour from scratch
just another god damned fool apologist
fuck i can't stand stupid fuckers

>> No.9579823

>>9579808

>you shoulda read the pdf link above

I did and
> a 4C change is all they claim is required
u didn't read ?
sounds optimistic as fuck. I'm more prepared to believe the shielding claims.

> I could do it an hour from scratch
Ok go

>> No.9579841

>>9579823
>We still would have to count on the atmosphere regenerating or more likely importing CO2 from Venus
ANOTHER FUCKING LIAR, A FUCKING FOOL, AND A LIAR
GTFO of the sci you fraud

>> No.9579848

>>9579054
Easy. We build a giant pipe from the Pacific ocean to Mars. We can pump all the water away from China and commiefornia. And we get an ocean on Mars. It's a win win

>> No.9579867

>>9579841
Eat a shit, my dude

>> No.9579884

Shouldn't we terraform Australia first? So much untapped potential.

>> No.9579921

>>9579054
Send up cows
Their farts are made of methane
Their shit furtilizes the soil
Their meat feeds the astronauts

>> No.9579929

>>9579812
I don't seem to get the joke here.

what the fuck is your problem?
is it ironic or are you just being autistic and getting mad over hypothesis?

>> No.9579964

>>9579054
There is no point in colonizing Mars. Builiding a settlement there is dangerous, difficult, and expensive. And there is absoluetely no potential return of investment whatsoever. There are no ressources there, that we don't have on earth (unlike the gas giants or the asteroid belt), using it as an "outpost" for further space travel is barely possible, because it so far away from earth and has a big gravity well (unlike the moon, which is both close and easy to leave). So all in all, we should go there to research it, but building a settlement there is a waste of money.

Generally, human settlements in outer space are only going to happen if 1. we can build large spinning habitats that create an artificial gravity or 2. we can modify our genome so that we can live in reduced gravity without issues (this however would also mean that the space humans could not just come back to earth as they like). Other than that living in space will never happen.

>> No.9580629
File: 33 KB, 596x314, >.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9580629

>>9579054
why did people react so weird when Elon stated that nuking the poles would heat up the planet?
terra forming is not minecraft shit

>> No.9580654

>>9579054
Mars as a "planet" does not exist.

>> No.9580660

>>9579054
Everyones going on and on about fucking dyson spheres
Dyson spheres this
Dyson spheres that
We wont be colonizing mars until we can put a dyson sphere on mars for a more uniform and complete magnetosphere.

Either that or do some sort of planetary core cpr or transplant.

>> No.9580673

>>9580654
>Mars is a huge shit god left behind before leaving for a different galaxy