Terraforming Mars

Pages: 123
I always loved this concept. There are many, many, ways we could do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars is a wiki page of terraforming Mars.

After reading this (you really don't have to) I'd like you to post your believed concept of achieving this, posted on wiki or not.

I believe we could get multiple mirrors, put them around the planet, and direct the sun's rays on them. Then, once the temp is raised a bit, the dry ice would turn to gas and the CO2 would heat up the planet.

Then, if there is some type of chemical to remove oxygen from the rust in the soil, we could use that oxygen to put animals, and a few humans on it.(We'd have to frequently fly back to Earth so our bones don't get messed up though) In addition to that, we would have a nice supply of iron to get a nice colony started.

So, what do you think?
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
I don't think any of those are feasible, I mean theoretically sure, but you talking on the scale of a planet. Just getting enough resources to do any one of those is a challenge. If you can heat up the planet enough for the CO2 to stay as a gas, who's to say it will stay on the planet. Mars doesn't really have an atmosphere, infact the only planet in our solar system that has an atmosphere as dense or denser than Earth is Saturn's moon Titan. How are you going to stop Mars from heating up once it reaches the optimal temperature ? Kind of a problem we are facing now, or at least people are arguing whether global warming even exists.
Mars isn't a very large planet.

Another way of doing this would be to set off some sort of nuclear bomb or something, then that would head up the CO2.

One the CO2 is heated up, there should be enough gasses for a thicker atmosphere than before. The process continues....

After the atmosphere is thick enough, we then take away the mirrors. Simple enough.

Getting rid of the excess CO2 is really a plus for us, and it does good in 2 ways.
I think I saw a show about this, but I distinctly remember one astronomer saying it could take 50+ years to heat up Mars to a livable temperature.
What if we send 1-10 nuclear bombs to the surface?

That would heat it up rather quickly, we'd wait about 20 years for the radiation to get to a safe level, and by then water would be flowing and the atmosphere thick enough.
Fredbill30 wrote:

...we'd wait about 20 years for the radiation to get to a safe level...


Wut? Where'd you get this magic number 20? Have you heard what happened to Japan and Chernobyl? I might be talking out of my ass here, but I don't think nuclear bombs is a wise way to heat up Mars. Besides, you'd have to fire off so many bombs continuously, which would break every single nation economically and resource-wise.

Oh, and the astronomer I mentioned in my previous post brought up the idea of heating up Mars by reflecting light off satellites (that's why he said 50+ years).

But no matter how terraforming occurs, it will take a long time, lots of resources, and money. I doubt we'll live long enough to see people colonizing on Mars.
@xerzi
Mars doesn't really have an atmosphere, infact the only planet in our solar system that has an atmosphere as dense or denser than Earth is Saturn's moon Titan


forgot about venus?

^ That's what I was about to say
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
It being smaller is part of the problem to why it has no atmosphere, the wiki page goes over the problems and has "continuing source of gases" as a solution to that problem.

Yah Venus has an atmosphere as well, I forgot what made Titan unique is it's atmosphere and bodies of liquid on the surface.
Ultimately it'd be worth the time for terraforming IMO.

Countries could use it for military bases. (I honestly think if we are sophisticated enough to terraform, we should think of the world as one whole, one huge country.

Also, we would have more resources (A large source of iron) for human expansion.

And if something catastrophic happens (Alien invasion, meteor, etc.), we could use it as a second-earth.
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
It's not a matter of time. There's only so much gas available and pumping it into a dissolving atmosphere isn't worth it. Some examples of helium running low, the gas that we just let go into the atmosphere for the amusement of a floating balloon that has some other uses, medical purposes.
Last edited on
Scratch that CO2 pumping. (Well we could still, only to get rid of some excess).

We just need means of heating up the planet just a bit, so the dry ice will heat up, and the atmosphere would be thicker.

It'd be a good way for companies to get their ozone-creating chemicals. Just send them to NASA and they'll put then in Mars.
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
The problem isn't creating the atmosphere, it's sustaining it.
It's gravity should keep it in place.

Now we need a way to get a magnetic field around Mars.
@fred
Countries could use it for military bases. (I honestly think if we are sophisticated enough to terraform, we should think of the world as one whole, one huge country.


you might be interested in some of the things michio kaku talks about (besides just string theory)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnmmnpj_pX8


but in the end this discussion is sorta pointless because we dont have the resources to do it now, and in the future, who knows what technology will be in place to make this a possibillity
We actually do have the resources to do this now. If not we can simply mine mars to get the resources...
you forgot one little resource called money.

no country is going to tell their people theyre spending billions to terraform mars
^ Good point. Why wont all the countries just put in a few billion to the UN's fund to fund some sort of international version of NASA?
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
It's gravity should keep it in place.


No because it is such a small planet, it wouldn't be able to sustain one.

^ Good point. Why wont all the countries just put in a few billion to the UN's fund to fund some sort of international version of NASA?


As there is no guarantee it would work. It costs a billion alone to launch a space shuttle. Can only imagine the cost of sending anything of significant mass to Mars.
Last edited on
It's gravity should keep it in place.
No it won't, Mars isn't big enough to sustain much of an atmosphere.
Pages: 123