Terraforming Mars

[Salvador]

Parts of the heavens are indeed there for us humans to transform into biospheres sustaining human life. Mars is likely the first place beyond Earth in our solar system to get a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere.

The first step towards the terraforming of Mars is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

Some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $1/2 trillion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than ten thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

Do you think this terraforming of Mars could be done at an affordable cost of approximately $500 billion annually over the duration of a few millenniums?

 

[Twilight Hue]

We can't even terraform our own planet, much less another one.

At any rate it seems whenever there is an intentional manipulation of the elements, it seems to have a habit of not turning out very well.

The practice of " seeding" clouds already to manipulate weather patterns tends to make it pretty miserable for those living under the clouds. Worse still is knowing that it's all intentional and deliberate and at times I wonder if it's done for political reasons as opposed to ecological.

Either way there are plenty of warnings about messing with nature . They just go ahead and do it anyways.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Parts of the heavens are indeed there for us humans to transform into biospheres sustaining human life. Mars is likely the first place beyond Earth in our solar system to get a man-made biosphere that is an appreciable fraction in size comparable to Earth's biosphere.

The first step towards the terraforming of Mars is the deployment of a magnetic shield that protects Mars against the solar wind stripping of its atmosphere. This magnetic shielding would subsequently allow the planet's atmosphere to reacquire its former density that'd be high enough to allow for sustainable surface liquid water.

Reference: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magne...phere.html

An effective artificial magnetosphere placed at Langrangian point 1 from Mars is very achievable with foreseeable technology. This magnetic shielding apparatus could weigh less than a few hundred tonnes which is within the load capacity of a big Falcon 9 rocket. I'm guessing the cost of protecting the Martian atmosphere with an artificial magnetosphere would probably be similar to the cost of a small nuclear reactor.

Some few billion tonnes of sulfur hexafluoride gas (SF6) could increase Martian atmospheric surface temperatures by over 20 degrees Celsius. Sulfur hexafluoride - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The SpaceX interplanetary transport system could deliver this super greenhouse gas to Mars at a cost of less than $2,000/kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mar...astructure

A few hundred thousand tonnes of SF6 delivered annually to Mars would cost just approximately $1/2 trillion yearly. This is less than a fraction of a percent of the global economic output value. An accumulation of a few billion tonnes of SF6 at an annual rate of a few hundred thousand tonnes would take less than ten thousand years. The annual cost of less than $100 per person per year on Earth would be totally worth transforming Mars into a world with triple its current atmospheric pressure and a warmer Mars with average surface temperatures greater than typical summer Antarctic temperatures.

Do you think this terraforming of Mars could be done at an affordable cost of approximately $500 billion annually over the duration of a few millenniums?

Hello. Maybe some day, once we grow up and learn to live here without screwing up our biosphere and cause mass extinctions because of our greed and indifference (to name some of our shortcomings).

 

[Revoltingest]

Why?

 

[Salvador]

Hello. Maybe some day, once we grow up and learn to live here without screwing up our biosphere and cause mass extinctions because of our greed and indifference (to name some of our shortcomings).

How about transferring Carbon Dioxide from Earth to Mars, we'd then be taking care of the Earth's biosphere along withbuilding a foundation for a Martian biosphere.

 

[Salvador]

Why?

The survival of our species may depend on humans being an interplanetary species.

 

[Salvador]

We can't even terraform our own planet, much less another one.

At any rate it seems whenever there is an intentional manipulation of the elements, it seems to have a habit of not turning out very well.

The practice of " seeding" clouds already to manipulate weather patterns tends to make it pretty miserable for those living under the clouds. Worse still is knowing that it's all intentional and deliberate and at times I wonder if it's done for political reasons as opposed to ecological.

Either way there are plenty of warnings about messing with nature . They just go ahead and do it anyways.

Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is something we humans do very well. Global warming is bad for most life and people on Earth, but global warming is what Mars needs for it to become a place for people to live .

 

[Twilight Hue]

Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is something we humans do very well. Global warming is bad for most life and people on Earth, but global warming is what Mars needs for this place to become way more habitable for people to live .

I suspect it's more than just expelling various gasses to warm up a planet. You have to consider Mar's size, its satellites, magnetic poles, rotation , and revolution , taking into account where its positioned in the solar system, a big one will be also be it's intense radiation .

Take a look at Venus for instance. Plenty of greenhouse gas is there, the planet is clearly plenty warm which will be an understatement, but not in the way people would think in creating a Garden of Eden for life per se. :0)

Also there is a logistical problem concerning the acquisitions of resources assuming such a feat could even be accomplished. Unless it could be manufactured right there, taking resources out from the Earth to another planet would seem both planets would be affected in some way shape or fashion in the end, assuming we had the technological capability to do such a thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

The survival of our species may depend on humans being an interplanetary species.

There are more apparently practical solutions for the foreseeable future.....
1) Design survivable enclaves around the glob to cope with re-occurrence
of past calamities, eg, meteor strikes resulting in destruction & massive
climate interruptions & changes.
2) Colonize asteroids & small moons, which have the advantage of
providing material, radiation shielding, & low-g accessibility for regular
Earth commerce.
3) Space stations orbiting Earth. If ever we get a space elevator, these
could be numerous & massive.

Note that a space elevator would make places like Mars & the Moon
more accessible. If terraforming never becomes practical, then the
latter is far superior because of
proximity to Earth.

 

[Salvador]

There are more apparently practical solutions for the foreseeable future.....
1) Design survivable enclaves around the glob to cope with re-occurrence of past calamities, eg, meteor strikes resulting in destruction & massive climate interruptions & changes.
2) Colonize asteroids & small moons, which have the advantage of providing material, radiation shielding, & low-g accessibility for regular Earth commerce.
3) Space stations orbiting Earth. If ever we get a space elevator, these could be numerous & massive.

Space elevators sound pretty cool, but Elon Musk explains why they aren't realistic.

There's a pretty cool video showing precisely how SpaceX's interplanetary transport system works.

 

[Revoltingest]

Space elevators sound pretty cool, but Elon Musk explains why they aren't realistic.

There's a pretty cool video showing precisely how SpaceX's interplanetary transport system works.

Without watching the video, the space elevator could end up being realistic
only up to a certain planetary body gravitational intensity. So it could become
practical on Mars, but not Earth....or the Moon, but not Mars.

 

[Salvador]

Without watching the video, the space elevator could end up being realistic
only up to a certain planetary body gravitational intensity. So it could become
practical on Mars, but not Earth....or the Moon, but not Mars.

Carbon nanotubes lack the strength to get a space elevator off the ground from Earth into space, but they might be strong enough to get a lunar space elevator off the ground from the weaker gravitational field.of the moon into space.

Lunar space elevator - Wikipedia

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you think this terraforming of Mars could be done at an affordable cost of approximately $500 billion annually over the duration of a few millenniums?

I voted yes, but I think that price tag is far too high. 500 billion annually for millennia should terraform a hundred planets. I like the shield idea and the super-greenhouse gas idea.

I think terraforming will be best accomplished by small terraforming devices that reproduce using Martian materials. That should be a lot less expensive than 500 billion per year and should also yield research benefits for us here on Earth. We shield the planet as you suggest with satellite tech, plus we get these reproducing devices designed and started working on the planet. They gradually cover the planet and prepare it for plant life. They could also trap heat and produce raw materials for building later.

 

[Salvador]

Futuristic technology beyond the near future, hopefully could drive down terraforming costs. I think $500 billion dollars a year is a bargain price for transforming Mars into a place beyond Earth where there could be sustained liquid water and where life could subsist. However, I suspect most people would think $500 billion a year is too much money to spend for advanced space exploration and eventual colonization of another world.

 

[Regiomontanus]

How about transferring Carbon Dioxide from Earth to Mars, we'd then be taking care of the Earth's biosphere along withbuilding a foundation for a Martian biosphere.

Hello. Let me know when you figure out a way to do that efficiently and on large scale

As useful as that might be, it is really just treating a symptom. We will not have a sustainable, secure future until we figure out how to live without creating those problems in the first place.

 

[Revoltingest]

Futuristic technology beyond the near future, hopefully could drive down terraforming costs. I think $500 billion dollars a year is a bargain price for transforming Mars into a place beyond Earth where there could be sustained liquid water and where life could subsist. However, I suspect most people would think $500 billion a year is too much money to spend for advanced space exploration and eventual colonization of another world.

Remember that whatever a contractor tells you on a time-&-materials job,
The price & schedule will only double....if one is lucky.

 

[Woberts]

How about transferring Carbon Dioxide from Earth to Mars, we'd then be taking care of the Earth's biosphere along withbuilding a foundation for a Martian biosphere.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that wouldn't be remotely close to being cost-effective.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that wouldn't be remotely close to being cost-effective.

As I recall, it costs around $10,000 to put a pound of anything into Earth orbit.
Even assuming that cost could come down, getting it to Mars would be even
spendier.

 

[Salvador]

As I recall, it costs around $10,000 to put a pound of anything into Earth orbit.
Even assuming that cost could come down, getting it to Mars would be even
spendier.

Elon Musk's SpaceX has done a remarkable job at bringing the cost down of space travel.
"Each ITS spaceship will probably be able to fly at least a dozen times, and each booster should see even more action, Musk said. This reusability is the key component of SpaceX's plan, and should be the chief driver in bringing the price of a Mars trip — which Musk said would cost about $10 billion per person using today's technology — down to to reasonable levels.

"The architecture allows for a cost per ticket of less than $200,000," Musk said. "We think that the cost of moving to Mars ultimately could drop below $100,000."

SpaceX's Elon Musk Unveils Interplanetary Spaceship to Colonize Mars

$200,000/100kg person equals $2,000/kg. A typical person consumes a ton of food and water each year. Not to mention the added weight of other supplies people need. i.e. - oxygen, space suits, and etc. If it is going to cost $2,000/kg/person to get to Mars, then it'd probably be less than 10 percent this amount for greenhouse gases sent to Mars from Earth,; this would then be a cost of less than $200 per kg of sulfur hexafluoride getting sent to Mars from Earth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Elon Musk's SpaceX has done a remarkable job at bringing the cost down of space travel.
"Each ITS spaceship will probably be able to fly at least a dozen times, and each booster should see even more action, Musk said. This reusability is the key component of SpaceX's plan, and should be the chief driver in bringing the price of a Mars trip — which Musk said would cost about $10 billion per person using today's technology — down to to reasonable levels.

"The architecture allows for a cost per ticket of less than $200,000," Musk said. "We think that the cost of moving to Mars ultimately could drop below $100,000."

SpaceX's Elon Musk Unveils Interplanetary Spaceship to Colonize Mars

$200,000/100kg person equals $2,000/kg. A typical person consumes a ton of food and water each year. Not to mention the added weight of other supplies people need. i.e. - oxygen, space suits, and etc. If it is going to cost $2,000/kg/person to get to Mars, then it'd probably be less than 10 percent this amount for greenhouse gases sent to Mars from Earth,; this would then be a cost of less than $200 per kg of sulfur hexafluoride getting sent to Mars from Earth.

Even with Musk's unproven optimistic estimates, it doesn't look even remotely cost
effective for carbon sequestration on Mars (something I was specifically addressing).
I'm highly skeptical of the notion that we'll terraform Mars, & make an independently
survivable alternative to Earth. It would need a fully functioning advanced technological
society. That's a big thing to do.
I prefer solutions close to home (Earth) for accessibility.