Terraforming Not Feasible

[AvatarIII]

I haven't read the whole topic but... Why not do what the virtual village people did. Create a dome through whatever means and live in that, little outpost sorted. If you need more room, just expand it. It could be made out of glass, diamond, even a force field. If you looked at the ZPM field from the Kiddy Planet, all you would need to do would be to shrink the size and change its emission slightly, and you are sorted to do the algae thing.

yeah? and risk being killed off by a supercomputer and having our memories erased? i don't think so!!

[XFire]

yeah? and risk being killed off by a supercomputer and having our memories erased? i don't think so!!

Well there wouldn't be a supercomputer just a lot of strengthened glass.

[zoislk]

Take your own advice RedWolf, doubling of human life span has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with better healthcare, better diet, and cleaner environment.

Agreed. Except for the better diet and cleaner environment part.

Healthcare is definitely a reason for why our lifespans have increased, along with more complete understanding of ourselves and life in general.

People don't die of smallpox, dysentary, bubonic(sp?) plague, Scurvy, influenza, parasites, various vitamin/mineral deficiancies and a host of other problems like they did 100 years ago because of advances in science, not human evolution. Your blocking out 80% of the evidence to fit your view of the way things work, not very scientific of you...

While this is true, it also puts a shroud on a little fact you are ignoring: these evolutionary advances wouldn't happen in a mere 100 years. Evolution takes a very long time, as it's a gradual process. Yes, those cures you speak of came about because of advances in medicine and not our AIS (auto immune system). But that says nothing about the existence of evolution.

P.S. When I say people don't die of those things, I mean in general. I know that there are still people who live in deplorable conditions that die of many of those diseases (especially vitamin/mineral deficiancies, parasites, and dysentary). Which is further proof that evolution is not to credit for increased human life span.

That doesn't prove anything about the presence of evolution, except that we haven't evolved an immunity naturally yet, and it's definitely possible that we never will.



As an example, I'll use the exact same reasoning you did to prove that evolution IS currently present in our species. It may not be GOOD reasoning, but it's the very same reasoning you are using and should be taken just as seriously.

In 1912, the world record for the 100 meter dash was 10.6. That was the fastest anyone had ever run that short a distance. In 2007, there were far over 1,000 high schoolers in the United States alone that ran 10.6 seconds during the spring track season. The current world record now stands at 9.74.

In 1913, the world record for a 1 mile run was 4:14.4. That was the fastest anyone had ever run that short a distance. In 2007, there were over 125 runners that ran faster than 4:14.4 in the mile. The current world record now stands at 3:43.13.

Do you notice a trend? Yes, more and more people are accomplishing greater and greater feats. I would say that, at the very least, negates any argument using selective reasoning that tries to say there is no current physiological progression taking place.



Since evolution is such a gradual process, I think the only way that you can prove or disprove that humans are currently evolving is to compare the average human now with the average human of, say, 5,000 years ago. That would be an appropriate minimum timeframe for a significant change to start taking place. Mind you, though, the process would likely not have been completed yet and thus may not appear obvious to those not knowing where to look.

I find it interesting that you create this thread to open scientific discussion of such a modern/post-modern topic as terraforming, and then spout on about evolution not being present in our species right now. That's interesting because the current scientific belief is that humans are continuing to evolve as we speak.

Quick search of Google leads you to these 3 pages talking about recent evolution (recent being in the last 20,000 years, of course)

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8812
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/articl...ontinue-evolve
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/science/09brain.html



If these changes are this recent, why is it crazy to assume that similar changes are also continuing on now? Because you haven't seen anything new in the last 100 years? If that's the case, get a clue. Because you apparently don't know anything about this kind of subject.

[kefke20]

At least not yet, and not in the real world.

I am an avid watcher of the Science Channel, and love doing casual research into all kinds of science (mostly computer and space-centric topics) and have come to the conclusion that Mars will not be terraformed for centuries, more likely millenia. Of course, I'm hardly qualified to make such a decision, so I've come here for all of your opinions. Not that you'll change my mind, just that it'd be an interesting discussion

There are no less than four (maybe five) attributes that any world must have to be brought to an Earth-like state.

1. An Earth-like Atmosphere: This is of course the most obvious of them all. Without a proper atmosphere a colony is restricted to heavily shielded installations to protect from the harsh environment, be that the existing atmosphere, the lack there-of, or cosmic radiation that is not being stopped by the (non)atmosphere.

We can cultivate an atmosphere through various means, but they almost all depend on existing sources of water. Which is yet another requirement that we can't count on even on Mars, even though Scientists are farely certain there is water somewhere under the surface.

2. A Strong Magnetic Field/Iron/Nickel Core: The planet in question must have an Iron and Nickel Core in order to maintain a powerfull magnetic field, or energetic particles emitted by the sun will burn away the atmosphere that we so lovingly cultivated. This magnetic field also influences our weather, somehow, by-proxy, I think... If this can be verified/debunked that would be great. At any rate, that magnetic field is essential to protect the new atmosphere.

3. The planet must be Near 1G: Meaning that it must have a level of surface gravity very near that of Earth. To much and our bodies cannot handle it, to little and we start to fall appart, not to mention that the atmosphere will slowly leak away.

4. Lastly, it must have A Satellite: By that I mean a Moon. The Moon does a wealth of good to the Earth. It stabilizes Earth's orbit, giving us predictable seasons and stable weather (compared to the rest of our star system). It also creates the tides, which are important to alot of Earth based life forms. Not to mention the huge number of impacts the Moon takes for us. I think there is more, but the stability of the planet's rotation is so important that nothing else matters.

I also believe that active plate tectonics are essential, but I don't remember why I came up with that, so I didn't include it in my list.

Here are the ways these problems can be addressed, granted most of these solutions will not use current technology, because current technology will not suffice.

1. Atmosphere: Assuming there is frozen water, you introduce large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to increase the planet-wide temperature enough to melt the ice. This would release more CO2 and continue to warm the planet, as well as introduce water vapor into the new atmosphere. After a certain point algae is introduced (most likely geneticaly engineered for the task) to increase nitrogen levels. When nitrogen levels are high enough, and enough water is available, higher level plants (more evolved) are introduced to increase oxygen levels. In the case of Mars there are huge levels of Oxygen tied up in Iron Oxide all over the planet (that is why Mars is a rusty red color) which can be released when a great deal of energy is applied. In this method you could create an Earth-like atmosphere in a few centuries, if we started next week ;p

2. Magnetic Field/Iron Core: This one is simple, tractor beam (or attach a rocket to) a big hunk of iron, or lots of pieces of iron, and smash it into the planet. If your lucky the impact will melt a large portion of the surface and cause the heavier-than-rock iron to sink to the core of the planet, thus supplanting the normally rock core with an iron one. The impact will have to be sufficiently large to melt enough of the rock to get all the way to the bottom or the magnetic field will be off-center at best, and not work at the worst. You also don't want to blast the whole planet apart, unless your trying to make a moon Obviously this step will have to be done before the formation of the atmosphere.

3. Earth-like Gravity: Basically this will be done in the same step as the construction of the iron core. By introducing heavier elements at various levels, or by sending other other large mass objects (perhaps from the asteroid belt) to the planet a higher level of gravity could be achieved.

4. Natural Satellite(Moon): Either piece one together from asteroids and meteors to achieve the right size at the right distance or do it the way the Earth got its moon. The first method is more likely to happen soon... well sooner.

By gathering together many large objects, again from the asteroid belt, you could eventually form a moon. At first you may need to maintain their relative position to eachother and the planet. Eventually their mutual gravity would draw them together, and after a great deal of time the increasing gravity of the object would cause it to become more cohesive, eventually becomeing a sphere. This process could be sped up if the initial objects are of a super heavy element, such as Uranium, but an inert element/substance would probably be a better choice.

The second would be to replicate the birth of our own moon. It is theorized that a large object, roughly the size of Mars, struck the early still-molten Earth. This impact threw off huge amounts of material into orbit. This material eventually coalesced into our moon. This method would make creating the Iron Core easier because it would most certainly melt the entire planet, allowing the iron to sink all the way to the bottom. However, it is extremely risky, because there is no way to be sure it will turn out properly. If to much is ejected than the mass of the planet may become to small, if to little than you just wasted your time and energy, and it takes alot of energy to move a planetoid! You also don't know if it will land in the right orbit (the correct distance). It gets even more complicated when you factor in that you need the distance to be just right for the ratio between planetary gravity and lunar gravity. This method is just too unpredictable.

Both methods could take centuries to create a moon.

As to my (almost) certainty that there must be active plate tectonics, well you'd introduce radioactive elements to the iron/nickel core when you insterted it, such as Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium. These elements exist at the center of the Earth, within the Iron/Nickel core, and create a kind of atomic engine that keeps the interior of the Earth very hot. Without it the Earth would have cooled after less than 100 million years after the formation of the moon, this would have eliminated plate tectonics, and thus made life impossible, for some reason I can't remember.

Okay, that is my rediculusly long post. Thoughts?

By the shire number of solar systems in the milkyway you got Statistical so 10.000 or more planets widths are earth like ore Terraformingabol (???spelling ??)