this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2024
114 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23229 readers
224 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For years and decades now the concept of terraforming Mars has kept researchers and science experts on their feet scratching their heads to find a solution. This enthusiasm came from various fictional novels and movies that have given scientists hope that perhaps they can implement this idea. According to research, Mars has the potential to be humanity’s second home and they are trying to make this concept a reality.

If Mars is ever to be terraformed, it will be a monumental task. Terraforming Mars could take decades or even centuries in its initial stages. Additionally, we do not have the technological capacity to implement this initiative. This sobering realisation highlights the enormous obstacles that stand in our way of realising the aim of altering the Red Planet. NASA needs to reassess the grand dream of Terraforming Mars

The dream or vision of making Mars a planet that can give life to humanity is an interesting one. This concept has been part of scientific language and conversation for decades now and it promises not to just give humanity a different perspective, but, also to serve as plan B as the Earth is changing. Scientists have hypothesised that humanity may establish conditions conducive to human life on Mars by releasing greenhouse gases and altering Martian.

NASA has admitted to this impossible mission stating that It is not possible to terraform Mars with current technology. Mars’ thin atmosphere and deficiency in vital resources such as enough carbon dioxide that would be required to start a greenhouse effect and warm the planet are the main obstacles. The idea of converting Mars into an environment more like Earth is significantly more difficult than first thought due to the harsh reality of the planet’s current status.

Therefore, the issue is not entirely based on technology, but also based on the enormity of the resources needed. Less than 1% of Earth’s atmosphere is found on Mars, and the planet does not have a magnetic field to shield it from cosmic radiation. It is therefore a wise idea for scientists and researchers to discard this idea since reports state that it could take thousands of decades to implement this idea. Unless a new technology advances enough to take on this big idea. Obstacles on the journey to a habitable Mars: Scientific, material, and time

Mars does not have the nature or resources that are similar to Earth that can even give us hope. If it comprises less than 1% of what the Earth attributes, then it could be a waste of time, resources and investments. Due to the abundance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere (earth), heat is retained and a rather stable climate is produced. Mars’s sparse atmosphere prevents the planet from efficiently retaining heat.

According to Bonsor (n.d.), NASA is reportedly developing a solar sail propulsion technology that would harness solar energy to power spaceships through the use of enormous reflective mirrors. Placing these massive mirrors a few hundred thousand kilometres away from Mars would be another way to use them: to heat the Martian surface by reflecting solar radiation.

NASA has found that, even in the event that all of Mars’ CO2 could be released, the atmospheric pressure required for human survival without a spacesuit would not be produced. The entire accessible carbon dioxide is insufficient to generate a habitable atmosphere, and transferring more gases from Earth or other celestial planets is currently beyond our technical capabilities.

The lack of a magnetic field on Mars presents another significant difficulty. The Earth’s magnetic field is essential for protecting the world from solar winds and dangerous cosmic radiation, which would otherwise remove our atmosphere. Mars has a thin atmosphere now because billions of years ago, the planet lost its magnetic field. It is just not possible to build an artificial magnetic shield using the technologies available today in order to terraform Mars.

The idea of terraforming may not be fully realised for several millennia, even though humans might visit Mars this century. It took the Earth billions of years to develop into a planet on which plants and animals could flourish. It is not an easy task to change the Martian landscape to resemble Earth. To create a livable environment and introduce life to the icy, arid planet of Mars, generations of human creativity and labour will be required (Bonsor, n.d).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

I'm bouncing around this thread calling out all the problems with space colonization as a solution to problems on Earth, and I'd like to give just one example of why terraforming Mars is, for all practical terms, completely impossible. And I'm going off the premise that terraforming is necessary to make Mars actually habitable for large groups of humans - the resource cost of self-contained spaces all over the planet would be far too high to make sense as a solution to living even on a degraded Earth.

Mars's atmosphere is 1/50th the density of the Earth's. Its current total mass is 2.5e+16 kg. To get it on par with Earth's (the reasonable threshold for habitability), we'd need to increase the mass of its atmosphere to 1.25e+18 kg. What's that number? That's 1,250,000,000,000,000,000 kg. Typically, the solution for providing Mars an atmosphere is to slam it with carbonaceous asteroids over and over until the endless collisions have formed a carbon-dense atmosphere from which we can start. Let's assume, generously, that 20% of the mass of an asteroid hitting a planet permanently becomes asteroid (that's very high but we're going with it to demonstrate the absurdity of this proposition). That means we'll need to bombard Mars with 6.25 x 10^18 kg of asteroids. Let's not worry about how many asteroids and assume we can do it with maximum efficiency. We just need to move asteroids from the closest portion of the belt to Mars. To do so we're ignoring the issues of: finding the asteroids (they are mostly very small), getting to the asteroids (they are very far apart), halting their momentum (they move very quickly), and developing the technology to move them (we don't have anything resembling a prototype for this). We're going to pretend we have a space station in the asteroid belt that keeps pace with Mars's orbit and always has something to launch. All we're looking for is the energy needed to transport that much mass that far.

The distance we need to cover in the most generous possible circumstance is 250 million km - about twice the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Converting kg to N will land us roughly around 5,625,000,000,000,000,000 N. To move that our 250M km is going to take 1.41026167125e+30 joules. Wow! That's a big number. What does it tell us? Well, annual global energy consumption is about 295167599999997700000 joules. That's 1/4,777,833,580 of the number we require to move suffficient atmospheric mass from the asteroid belt to Mars. So, if we reoriented every single ounce of energy on earth exclusively to building an atmosphere of sufficient mass (NOT COMPOSITION!!!) under impossibly optimistic conditions, it would take 4.7 billion years. Oh, and there would be 0 energy left over for human needs. Oh well!

When I say "terraforming Mars is impossible", this is what I mean.

(I did all this math myself so hopefully nothing's off)

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 week ago

Reality check for delusional people especially that goof that wants 1 million on mars in a couple of years

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 week ago

Well, if we can't in this generation, terraform Mars, then hopefully we could at least clean up the planet we currently live on. It would be like trying to invest in a new home when you have paid off your mortgage, rather than trying to clean up the home you currently live in.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I hope that NASA's declaration, detailed and understandable as it is, doesn't unintentionally promote King Bazinga's Mars A Lago grift and encourage credulous rubes to believe the carnival barker over the people that aren't trying to sell shit.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago

I hope it does and we get Oceangate, space edition steering-device absolutely-safe-capsule

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Am I alone in thinking we as a species shouldn't be wasting countless amounts of labor and resources on the stars when we have so many problems here at home?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

It's really never a choice of 'which planet should we work on'. The problems on Earth can be solved, but not under capitalism and the current global power structure. Under a different system that could actually address the problems, there would be such a massive global effort underway to improve life on Earth, that some human exploration of Mars would be a tiny expenditure in comparison. As things stand, the problems aren't permitted to be solved, so even if all space exploration was ended tomorrow, all that labor and resources would be redirected to the military or industrial research to boost the profits of corporations.

This only applies to the actual material reality. Billionaires and Musk-worshipers who delude themselves into thinking that Mars will let them escape climate change exist outside of that.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I know I stole this opinion from a series of sci-fi books, but I like it.

Planets should not be terraformed. It's vandalism of the natural world. If we are ever at the point where we have the technology to terraform a planet, we'll just as easily be able to build artificial habitats in space.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

It's vandalism of the natural world.

That can be said about literally any endeavor to increase the productive capacity of a given piece of land though...

This isn't a Marxist/Materialist position, is what I'm getting at.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We do not increas the productive capacity of a given piece of land - we only go through successive decreases in productivity that we attempt to mitigate through new technological methods. With another planet, you're starting from 0 productivity, and the prospect of increasing it is so outrageously expensive that it's invalidated before it even begins.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

We do not increas the productive capacity of a given piece of land - we only go through successive decreases in productivity that we attempt to mitigate through new technological methods.

That's patently not true. If it were, then the general population of human beings on Earth would've remained steady since the dawn of agriculture, which even before the "industrial revolution" proper it hadn't.

Your second point about terraforming a dead planet being more expensive than it's worth, and being more-or-less impossible under current conditions (the whole point of the article in OP) I would tend to agree with though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

That's patently not true. If it were, then the general population of human beings on Earth would've remained steady since the dawn of agriculture, which even before the "industrial revolution" proper it hadn't.

That's because we have continually been bringing new land and resources into production. If you're a theory reader, Jason Moore's Capitalism and the Web of Life is all about this idea and the dialectics of appropriation and exploitation that drive social change. It's a really really good read.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There is still a dialectic between the artificial world and the natural world. Valuing nature is a dialectical position.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean, "Nature" is a dialectic all in itself. It is at once both the ultimate origin of the human species, and everything with which we sustain & furnish ourselves; and at the same time it is the origin of every disease that would harm us, and of every condition & necessity that allows for one person to hold dominion over & abuse another. For that reason, it would be unwise not to attempt to make ourselves the masters of it.

But I would disagree that there is a "dialectic" between the "natural", and the "unnatural". That's a position born either out of theology, or of pastoral romanticism. Instead one might say that there is a dialectic between those things which are the product of human society distinctly, and those things which are not, but both are in fact contained within the broader scope of the Natural.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Good points all around. I will say that I wasn't using artificial to mean unnatural, merely to assert the dialectic you point out between human creation and nonhuman creation.

Otherwise we'd have to place bird nests and beaver dams into the category of artifice, and then things just get silly.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

What nature?

Far as we know,Mars is a dead rock. I agree that we should preserve hypothetical alien lifeforms,but what nature are we ruining by making an empty place livable?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago (6 children)

You don't necessarily need to terraform Mars.

Everyone is thinking Humans, land first, then live on there. I think we are putting the cart before the horse on this. Now getting a human there on the ground and back - doable. Just not the most practicable. Maybe somewhat suatainable but risky.

We have robotics, VR, cell and wireless tech. We can fairly easily build a space station around Mars. Set up a VR lab in the station and Avatar robots down there. I really am suprised we are not pioneering this tech with our current space station. Wouldn't it be cool to walk up to an Avatar bot controlled by someone on the ISS? That would be a great moment. Robots cheaper than humans and the systems required to keep them alive. They can also build.

That way if the robot breaks down you just send another to replace / fix. No need to worry about human suits, tears, squishy living things. They're all safe up in the station. The amount of work that can be done would be exponential. You wouldn't need to worry so much about time delays or planning careful routes. So much more ground could be covered in much higher detail because you don't need to worry so much about bandwith and power tranmission requirements, youxre just beaming to the local satellites which will beam it to the nearby station which will have far greater capabilities.

We can set up a logistics of power and refuling trains to go back and forth. Ion engines, batteries powered by the sun. Ect. You'd just need to get things into low Earth orbit and then hook up with your thrust module to get to Mars. You don't need massive gargantuan Saturn V Starship rockets for everything.

We can absolutely do this. We can do it with the Moon too to really test it out.

Oxygen? Rocks. Iron OXIDE. Titanium diOXIDE. If you really want people. That's a do-able thing I think. It just needs to be researched. We don't have a need here because Oxygen is plentiful here. But I think this will be key to just make our own water rather than trying to find some underground hidden glacier in the shadow of a crater in the poles to sustain human life. Hydrogen is plentiful too. Make our own water, litterly squeezing water from a stone.

Lack of magnetic field, dynamo is what allowed Mars' atmosphere to just leech off into space. My theory is a big asteroid punched it and created Olympus Mons where the core was ejected out / knocked out of comission. Reguardless we can't fix that right now. Any atmosphere for humans is going to have to be contained within either a suit or a vessel.

We can store energy from the sun and ship it wherever it needs to go, and even have a logistics train to do this and refill them. Have a standardized battery pack adapter that can be swapped out. Use this to also build out a high bandwith communications relay network for the solar system and beyond. We can then set out satelites and telescopes in deep space without having to consider as large or power hungry communications on them since we will have relay networks to carry the signal.

This will be the step we need to take advantage of the resources out there and expand humanity to get off this rock and maybe just maybe find some ETs.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I really am suprised we are not pioneering this tech with our current space station.

We're starting to get there. China's Chang'e 4 far-side lunar rover was controlled via a relay satellite in a halo orbit around the L2 Lagrange point. But I think crewed science missions to Mars will have to be housed on the ground for a few reasons:

  • Solar particle radiation, such as from solar flares. Mars' atmosphere, thin as it is, does help reduce this considerably despite the almost-nonexistent magnetic field. We've had radiation detection equipment on the surface of Mars for decades. We know exactly what to expect.

  • Synthesizing oxygen and methane using the Sabatier process for breathing and for refuelling a ship can't be done from orbit. Since there has to be a ground station for the Sabatier machinery, then why not just keep the astronauts there too? It's one less facility to maintain, and if they're at the same facility, they'll have access to effectively unlimited oxygen and water.

  • Orbital transfer windows are every 26 months. We've done 12 month stays on the ISS, but the astronauts and cosmonauts involved have had significant recovery time back here on Earth afterwards. 26 months in 0 G, plus the 3-4 month each-way travel time, may be too dangerous from a health perspective. 1/3 G might be enough to stave off the worst of bone and muscle loss. The amount of time the astronauts would have to exercise is reduced considerably from 0 G, and might not be needed at all if we're lucky. We've had an entire evolution's worth of time to experience 1 G, about a half century at 0 G, and a few weeks in 1/6 G. 1/3 G is a total unknown until we actually send well-informed fully-consenting healthy astronauts to see what it does to the human body.

  • Centrifuges to simulate gravity for humans like in the movie 2001 have never been put into space. The science is sound, but the engineering may be more complex than expected, there's a lot of moving parts involved. This is something we need to do reliably and repeatedly in Earth orbit before trying it somewhere else.

Starship is actually the least-crazy way to get people and bulk cargo to Mars with current technology. Aerobraking around Mars definitely works, we've done it many times with uncrewed satellites and probes. Starship will take advantage of Mars' atmosphere to bleed off most of its speed without having to carry a lot of fuel. Estimates are that about 98 to 99% of the transfer orbit speed can be bled off this way which is a massive fuel savings. The latest Starship flight test was a big success in demonstrating this capability. It made it all the way through re-entry and did a soft intact water landing in the Indian Ocean. Aerobraking at Mars is like a gentle breeze compared to the brutal pummelling that the successful IFT-4 Starship dealt with on its way down through Earth's thick atmosphere from near-orbital speeds.

I think the sanest starting approach is a small science station on the surface of Mars. Start with just a few people for their 26-month tour, maybe a dozen or so NASA scientists and technicians who are highly educated on the risks and willing to go anyway. Just use the Starships themselves as bases to start, leased from SpaceX, but 100% controlled by NASA. Use orbital relays to control robots in real-time like China did with Chang'e 4.

(Insert my usual caveat here about how my respect for SpaceX is strictly for the people doing the real science and engineering there, and not the asshole who owns it.)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Everyone is thinking Humans, land first, then live on there. I think we are putting the cart before the horse on this

Agreed generally. Counterargument though- billionaires, land first, then live(?) on there. Totally sustainable and it even returns a whole lot of wasted, poorly-allocated and ill-gained resources back into the system on Earth for humanity to benefit from immediately. Highly practicable (and flexible, once they're out of orbit it doesn't matter where they go or if anything goes wrong), sustainable, and virtually zero risk (at most, the shuttles are a write-off- using catapults instead might remedy this).

The rest of the process you described can happen after, but I think this is the most appropriate course of action.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

Counterargument though- billionaires, land first, then live(?) on there.

I like the vision, but I think just shooting them out of a cannon is probably going to achieve the same desired results with less expenditure.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Let's just do something more reasonable instead, like a Dyson Sphere

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

What is a solar panel if not a very tiny contribution to a Dyson Sphere future?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You'd have a hard time colonising Mars even if you had a portal, the soil is literally toxic y'all

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

Yeah, and we can't even keep our own planet alive. We are slowly making our own air and soil toxic with all the plastics and industrial wastes we keep creating.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This article reads like it was LLM spew. I don’t know why exactly, it just has that vibe.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago

It's the repeating information near the end

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is about terraforming, not settlement or visiting

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Idk if I'd call this a particularly trustworthy news source. It feels extremely click-baity.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What's the opposite of Terraforming? You know, the thing we're doing here.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Disruptive Innovation eco-porky

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Personally I always thought the prospect of colonizing Mercury in a non-earth-like way at our current technology level made more sense (if not financial sense)- it could be done in subsurface caverns, harvest energy from the surface, ice is present inside permanently shadowed craters. Water is constantly being created from solar wind blasting the surface (sputtering creates water vapor when solar wind hits oxide-laden rocks. ).

The real problem? While the average distance between Earth and Mercury is only 48million km, around a third the distance to Mars (140 million km), the orbital speed is 47.87 km/s per second compared to Earth's 29.78km/s, and Mars 24.08km/s. The transits could potentially be relatively short, but still end up consuming as many resources in the end. Mercury is also considerably less mass- while Mars and its gravity is 1/10th earths, Mercury is half that, which could have pretty bad long-term consequences for colonists.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The fundamental question of all space colonization - whether the planet next door or the other side of the galaxy - is: why? Who on earth would want to do that, and what could possibly be a sufficient economic incentive? Space travel is so outrageously difficult, expensive, and dangerous that it would without a doubt be easier to synthesize any special space resources (which probably don't exist anyways btw). We don't need the space because even Antarctic winters are cozier than the nicest day on Mars and population growth is about to level off globally.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Like, what would we gain from colonizing Mercury?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In terms of other planets it really doesn't make any sense outside of pure scientific exploration (frankly it's a good thing that it doesn't make economic sense) and for the strategy I described the moon is a better candidate anyways, for the reasons mentioned. That's what the Chinese moon missions have been investigating at least.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Scientific outposts are literally the only plausible reason. And we can get 90% of that value without a single human stepping foot on the given body, especially as robotics tech develops.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

And we can get 90% of that value without a single human stepping foot on the given body

Considering the toll long-term low gravity takes on people it's almost certain that's going to be the case. Having human habitats there is a lot of unnecessary complexity, but maintaining healthy humans in those conditions is categorically worse.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What's always intrigued me was air pressure and altitude. We all know air gets thinner as you go up, the inverse is true as well. A crater seven miles below "sea" level on Mars would have air pressure similar to the pressure of mountainous regions on Earth.

They'd probably still need a tent to block radiation, but they'd be livable breathable habitats. A few of these crater cities could dot the landscape while preserving the rest of Martian beauty, no terraforming required.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

yea no shit

load more comments
view more: next ›