[freeztar]

Originally Posted by modest

You may be wrong about that - and I think you are - Craig makes an excellent point.

Nevertheless, I think I may agree that it is slightly futile to bombard mars with comets in hopes of habitation. I fail to see how putting ice on an iceberg will help you grow an apple tree. Mars is frozen. It will remain so until it has an atmosphere and quite a substantial atmosphere at that. There's probably a clever way to overcome that problem, I just can't think of it.

-modest

Given my penchant for abiogenesis, I believe that bacteria could be excellent atmosphere formers, given the right starting conditions. This could warm up the "icy ball" much faster than trying to inject an artificial atmosphere, imho. Nonetheless, comets would seem to help the situation by providing more water and organic compounds.

On Earth, many extremophiles do quite well in icy conditions. Perhaps we should setup an experimental tardigrade station on Mars.

[Zythryn]

While we can create atmosphere, over time, on Mars, don't we still have the issue of not enough mass to stop the atmosphere from escaping?

[modest]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Given my penchant for abiogenesis, I believe that bacteria could be excellent atmosphere formers, given the right starting conditions. This could warm up the "icy ball" much faster than trying to inject an artificial atmosphere, imho. Nonetheless, comets would seem to help the situation by providing more water and organic compounds.

On Earth, many extremophiles do quite well in icy conditions. Perhaps we should setup an experimental tardigrade station on Mars.

I think bacteria would be better atmosphere transformers than instigators. And, I'm not sure I think they could do well on mars in anything like its current conditions. Antarctica - or the south pole I should say - doesn't really have any liquid water. It is a cold desert for all intents and purposes. Mars is much more so. We could expect bacteria to do worse on mars than the south pole.

Perhaps we could engineer little warm-blooded bacteria that could survive in a vacuum and eat minerals and release oxygen. Not too far fetched - not really. That might be the quickest way to get things done. So, yes, I think you could be right. But, our bacteria is going to need some major upgrading.

-modest

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by wikipedia
Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars with its present low atmospheric pressure, except at the lowest elevations for short periods


Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago, so the solar wind interacts directly with the Martian ionosphere, keeping the atmosphere thinner than it would otherwise be by stripping away atoms from the outer layer. Both Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Express have detected these ionised atmospheric particles trailing off into space behind Mars.

Originally Posted by Thunderbird
It would be like pouring water into a leaky bucket.

Originally Posted by modest

You may be wrong about that - and I think you are - Craig makes an excellent point.



-modest

May be wrong about what? that mars is a leaky bucket.
Even if you could raise the temp on mars, which you cannot, to get liquid water, the water would quickly evaporate into space.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by modest

I think bacteria would be better atmosphere transformers than instigators. And, I'm not sure I think they could do well on mars in anything like its current conditions. Antarctica - or the south pole I should say - doesn't really have any liquid water. It is a cold desert for all intents and purposes. Mars is much more so. We could expect bacteria to do worse on mars than the south pole.

Perhaps we could engineer little warm-blooded bacteria that could survive in a vacuum and eat minerals and release oxygen. Not too far fetched - not really. That might be the quickest way to get things done. So, yes, I think you could be right. But, our bacteria is going to need some major upgrading.

-modest

The south pole is on earth, its part of our bioshpere and is nothing like mars.
There is liquid water in the south pole.

Even if you could you start out with some freaky genetically engineered little warm-blooded, mineral eating, oxgen releasing bacteria, which you cannot, giving the fact that the surface is constantly bombarded with radiation and cosmic rays it would more than likly die, or worse yet become a deadly pathogen rather than a teraforming agent.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

It would be like pouring water into a leaky bucket.

May be wrong about what? that mars is a leaky bucket.

I should have been more clear. You may be wrong that it is impossible to form an atmosphere in the first place. I assume this is what you're saying. Once you form an atmosphere presumably you have the ability to sustain it. In other words, if you have the ability to fill a leaky bucket then you should have the ability to keep the leaky bucket full. The ladder requires less work. Once you have an atmosphere and have raised pressure and temperature enough to keep water liquid on the surface then your next comment is not immediately clear:

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Even if you could raise the temp on mars, which you cannot, to get liquid water, the water would quickly evaporate into space.

As Craig pointed out, mars once had an atmosphere substantial enough to sustain liquid water - so we know it's possible, yes?

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

The south pole is on earth, its part of our bioshpere and is nothing like mars.
There is liquid water in the south pole.

My point was that the driest and coldest place on earth is still better for bacteria than Mars.

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Even if you could you start out with some freaky genetically engineered little warm-blooded, mineral eating, oxgen releasing bacteria, which you cannot,

Not with current technology and not with that attitude, no.

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

giving the fact that the surface is constantly bombarded with radiation and cosmic rays it would more than likly die,

There exist bacteria on the control rods of nuclear reactors.

//edit

While I've heard this, I am unable to find a source for it. Bactera nevertheless can survive highly radioactive situations (more radioactive by far than Mars):
Bugs in the Reactor - TIME

and scientists are studying bacteria that manage well:
SpringerLink - Journal Article

//edit

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

or worse yet become a deadly pathogen rather than a teraforming agent.

Once again, if we overcome the problem of engineering bacteria that do our bidding on mars then it will be less of a problem to keep the little buggers from mutating into something harmful to us. The ladder takes less work and understanding.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

Terraforming Mars


NASA has on occasion suggested that the human race could one day colonize Mars, and also initiate life to take hold on the surface. I understand that there have been nigh Sayers in the past about the limits of science, and I hate to be one, but I do not believe this at all feasible. It is a dead planet, and always will be, period.... What do you think ? Does NASA know something about Geophysics that I do not?

Smack mars with a few dozen large comets, or broken pieces of large objects from the area that Pluto occupies should bring enough volatile compounds in to make an atmosphere. The greenhouse effects from those gases would raise the temps and then you could introduce extremeophile organisms from the earth, eventually even oxygen producing bacteria. Then you could introduce higher organisms. It would only take a few thousand to tens of thousand years. The atmosphere should last for few million years before it became necessary to bring in more volatile compounds. It is feasible but it would a very long term project. As for the whole planet needing to be alive from the core outward. Not necessary to transplant life from the Earth to Mars, the whole active Earth thing makes life more likely to exist here for longer periods of time but eventually the Earth will die when the earth looses it's magnetic field and then looses it's atmosphere. Even the Earth will die but it could be resuscitated by adding the volatile compounds that will be lost over time.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Earth will die when the earth looses it's magnetic field and then looses it's atmosphere.

Why assume Earth would loose its atmosphere? I don't think it would - at least not quickly. Venus has no magnetic field, more solar wind, and less mass. All that, and more atmosphere than it knows what to do with.

This makes me think, could we more easily terraform Venus by stripping away its atmosphere than terraforming mars?

-modest

[Moderator note: responses to this post were split off into the thread Terraforming Venus, because the two subjects are literally worlds apart]

[dcmike]

In answer to the critics on the obviously distant time frame and complication of terraforming Mars I say:

Man has been on a loooong journey from our beginnings in the oceans to where we are now. "We" obviously worked our way up on land because the only life form that was safe in the oceans then was kelp {kelp now fears only the Japanese!) - everything else was a predator! The marine environment is the most violent and hazardous place I know of on this planet.

We did this over millions of years and the next escape might take thousands, but patience always wins - if we don't destroy the planet first. As the Sun heats up and enlarges to ultimately fry us like an omlet, Mars may buy us a few thousand years - if we start now in our efforts to "fertilize" it. If we don't we are surely doomed. If we survive long enough to reside on Mars as residents (no green card)our technology will be advanced to the point that we may be on the horizon of discovering ways to travel fast enough to seek out the many possibilities that surely exist in the vast universe.

ON THE DOWN SIDE:
1 - I ponder that we (humans) are literally tailored to this planet and may be doomed with it. Our bodies need salt because of our origins in the sea, minerals, calcium etc. Although we are fabricated of the five most common elements in the universe we may not be able to adapt and evolve quickly enough to inhabit a new world.

2- If a new world were already inhabited we would be as welcome as the Haitian boat people were in the eighties, or even considered so below them they would "welcome" us as nearly slave labor like we Americans do with the Mexicans. There's always hope. Maybe with our quaint ways some of us could do something "Earthy" like play guitar, and be an exception like Carlos Santana is here!

3- In view of the way we have conquered, enslaved and even destroyed what we considered lower forms - even of our own species - maybe we should reconsider transmitting radio signals into space that say "here we are!" We have no way of knowing how good we may taste to them!!

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by dcmike

In answer to the critics on the obviously distant time frame and complication of terraforming Mars I say:

Man has been on a loooong journey from our beginnings in the oceans to where we are now. "We" obviously worked our way up on land because the only life form that was safe in the oceans then was kelp {kelp now fears only the Japanese!) - everything else was a predator! The marine environment is the most violent and hazardous place I know of on this planet.

We did this over millions of years and the next escape might take thousands, but patience always wins - if we don't destroy the planet first. As the Sun heats up and enlarges to ultimately fry us like an omlet, Mars may buy us a few thousand years - if we start now in our efforts to "fertilize" it. If we don't we are surely doomed. If we survive long enough to reside on Mars as residents (no green card)our technology will be advanced to the point that we may be on the horizon of discovering ways to travel fast enough to seek out the many possibilities that surely exist in the vast universe.

ON THE DOWN SIDE:
1 - I ponder that we (humans) are literally tailored to this planet and may be doomed with it. Our bodies need salt because of our origins in the sea, minerals, calcium etc. Although we are fabricated of the five most common elements in the universe we may not be able to adapt and evolve quickly enough to inhabit a new world.

2- If a new world were already inhabited we would be as welcome as the Haitian boat people were in the eighties, or even considered so below them they would "welcome" us as nearly slave labor like we Americans do with the Mexicans. There's always hope. Maybe with our quaint ways some of us could do something "Earthy" like play guitar, and be an exception like Carlos Santana is here!

3- In view of the way we have conquered, enslaved and even destroyed what we considered lower forms - even of our own species - maybe we should reconsider transmitting radio signals into space that say "here we are!" We have no way of knowing how good we may taste to them!!

Way before we are able to colonise other planets we will be able to make orbiting colonies like the O'Neil cylinders. these large orbiting colonies will make the need for planets obsolet. Once we are able to build these colonies the way we build manufactured housing now we can build hundreds of thousands if not millions and slowly spread through out the galaxy. Only using planetary systems for raw materials and leaving the planets alone.