# Should Mars be terraformed?



## rapidfox1

If Earth becomes unlivable, we would have a terraformed Mars to go to and live on.


----------



## JimmyDeansRetartedCousin

You been hitting the peyote eh? : b

If we had the means, sure why not? but by the time you got there wouldn't you'd be as old as Mick Jagger?!:um


----------



## 0lly

Would it be worth the energy and time? Surely we should adapt to live in new environments rather than trying to recreate our original habitat everywhere we go.


----------



## vk223

Uh..maybe some aliens will save us


----------



## ugh1979

Colonising Mars (and in turn terraforming it if we can) is THE most important thing mankind can do to ensure our longevity.

The sooner we get all our eggs out of one basket the better, as the **** will hit the fan here at some point. We need to make sure at least some of us are self sustainably living elsewhere first.


----------



## hoddesdon

That would take quite a long time, and first manned space travel as far as Mars needs to be accomplished. Unless you are going to transport animals to Mars, where they may not adapt anyway, everyone would have to be vegetarian. That may be positive.


----------



## MojoCrunch

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that if a person was to jump on Mars, they would float away b/c Mars has less gravity. That wouldn't sit too well with me. It'd be cool to be called a Martian. As for the visuals of Mars, I always thought living on a planet like that would be like living in a desert of the Middle East. Or Texas.


----------



## Magus

Oh yeah, terraforming Mars is clearly very simple and it is our greedy politicians who aren't thinking of our future but just themselves. 

Clearly, us primitive humans can create magnetic fields and atmospheres for an entire planet with relative ease! Damn greedy politicians!


----------



## Classified

MojoCrunch said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that if a person was to jump on Mars, they would float away b/c Mars has less gravity. That wouldn't sit too well with me. It'd be cool to be called a Martian. As for the visuals of Mars, I always thought living on a planet like that would be like living in a desert of the Middle East. Or Texas.


Mars has more gravity than the Moon, and astronauts were able to jump there.

Yes Mars should be terraformed, but the gravity level would have to be increased even more because hydrogen doesn't 'stick' to the planet anymore.

Venus would be the better choice. You would need to block the Sun a little from orbit to lower the thermal radiation. And we would need to break apart the CO2 that is at extreme levels there. That is easier than terraforming Mars.


----------



## hoddesdon

Classified said:


> Venus would be the better choice. You would need to block the Sun a little from orbit to lower the thermal radiation. And we would need to break apart the CO2 that is at extreme levels there. That is easier than terraforming Mars.


Really? The temperature is about 1000 degrees Celsius. It would need to be a large object to block the sun sufficiently. Changing the atmosphere would also be a big undertaking (?)


----------



## ugh1979

Classified said:


> Mars has more gravity than the Moon, and astronauts were able to jump there.


Yeah the gravity on Mars is just over a third of what it is on Earth. It's less than a fifth on the moon.



> Yes Mars should be terraformed, but the gravity level would have to be increased even more because hydrogen doesn't 'stick' to the planet anymore.


Not true, it's not gravity that is the problem, it's actually the lack of a magnetosphere that lets the water escape. Mars has been stripped of the far wetter atmosphere it probably once had by the solar winds due to the lack of a magnetosphere. It probably once did have a magnetosphere but lost it due to its core cooling and solidifying due to it's small size. It's the molten iron in the core of earth that gives us our magnetosphere.



> Venus would be the better choice. You would need to block the Sun a little from orbit to lower the thermal radiation. And we would need to break apart the CO2 that is at extreme levels there. That is easier than terraforming Mars.


No it wouldn't. The surface conditions on Venus are extremely inhospitable (500c surface temp, noxious atmosphere, intense pressure to name a few). Also, there is virtually no water anywhere, unlike on Mars which has polar ice caps and subterranean ice/water which we could use.


----------



## Classified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus

There are a lot of big challenges, but it is why we should take care of the one planet we have.

http://terraformers.org.au/escape.html

Gravity is half of the problem. A magnetic field is the other half.


----------



## Einangra

We should terraform every available planet so we have room to stretch our legs.

Just a matter of getting all the right technology together.....


----------



## shazala

Why not just build a giant space ship where we can live in?


----------



## ugh1979

shazala said:


> Why not just build a giant space ship where we can live in?


Colonisation of Mars would be easier and will surely come first, but a giant space ship may well be a long term solution. It would have to be a very very big space ship and being able to construct such a thing is further down the road than same system planet colonisation I'd say.


----------



## scarpia

Build giant rings to live on - rotate them for gravity. That's a cool idea too. 

But before we think of terraforming Mars we have to do a thorough search for any native microorganisms. We really need to know if any life formed there and then we need to study it. 

Question- if there IS any native life on Mars would it be ethical to terraform and colonize since that would destroy the native life?


----------



## Classified

A giant 'Halo' ring would be 'easier' if we built it around the Earth using space elevators. But it would take thousands of years...and you would need an army of robots to automatically put it all together.


----------



## Decrement

No, it will never happen. Unless all resources were channeled towards the one endeavour it will never happen. Think of how many people are at the cutting edge of technology and look at the **** they're developing. All either for entertainment, or for lazy ****s.


----------



## persona non grata

Of course we should, once it's more feasible. It would make the extinction of humanity much less likely, open up more natural resources, and would be the start of the Interplanetary Confederation of Human States which (as we all know) will probably have critical importance in the defense of the Milky Way from Yuuzhan Vong invasion. The Chenjesu will do the best they can either way, but can hardly be expected to save a whole galaxy by themselves. 


Sorry for this nonsense. :b


----------



## hoddesdon

persona non grata said:


> Of course we should, once it's more feasible. It would make the extinction of humanity much less likely, open up more natural resources, and would be the start of the Interplanetary Confederation of Human States which (as we all know) will probably have critical importance in the defense of the Milky Way from Yuuzhan Vong invasion. The Chenjesu will do the best they can either way, but can hardly be expected to save a whole galaxy by themselves.
> 
> Sorry for this nonsense. :b


There's no need to feel that way. Your nonsense is just as good as anybody else's nonsense.


----------



## millenniumman75

Heavens NO!
I read an article yesterday about some synthetic organism that eats Co2 and can create Oxygen, and even plastic poo. We have no right to mess up Mars. We are doing a fine job with Earth.

We don't need a red/pink Martian amoeba coming at us like on Star Trek.


----------



## Matt J

We'll all be dead long before this becomes a reality. WWIII, 20 years absolute tops.


----------



## sleepytime

It will probably happen, but not for a long long time.


----------



## Cynical

Terra forming Mars is the most logical step to do, it will further the advancement of human technology as well as expanding our territory in our solar system.


----------



## low

Regarding your question, but also for should it be exploited/mined etc. I don't see why not if there are no other living creatures there and it preserves or helps to maintain our own planet. I'm all for it. There could be resources there and very uniquely there's no harm to other creatures habitats.

I think there should be relative free enterprise if it is though.


----------



## NeonSloaney

They'll have to generate a magnetic field, increase density of atmosphere, and direct a buttload of comets onto the planet. It'll be in the thousands of years before it happens not decades.


----------



## Charizard

I don't really understand the obsession with making Mars liveable. 

We already have a planet. That has tons of resources at our disposal. 

What we need to do is be more environmentally conscious of the one we've got- because without that change in mindset, what's the point in even moving to Mars? We'll just continue to make the same mistakes.


----------



## Neptunus

Maybe after we've had a 21st century moon landing...


Like Charizard mentioned, why not work on taking care of what we have?


----------



## Cynical

Because its progress...


----------



## Classified

Because we are one man-made or natural disaster away from wiping out everything on this planet.

It is the mass-extinction insurance policy.

The big question is, who would go to different world, and what country (if any) would try and claim it.


----------



## ugh1979

Charizard said:


> I don't really understand the obsession with making Mars liveable.
> 
> We already have a planet. That has tons of resources at our disposal.
> 
> What we need to do is be more environmentally conscious of the one we've got- because without that change in mindset, what's the point in even moving to Mars? We'll just continue to make the same mistakes.


It's not just about resources though. It's about hedging our bets to ensure the future of mankind as one day there will be a disaster which wipes out most the life on earth.

The mass extinction of us could happen at any time, so the sooner we colonise space the better.

It's the most important thing mankind will ever do.


----------



## ugh1979

Classified said:


> The big question is, who would go to different world, and what country (if any) would try and claim it.


No country would claim it, just as no country can claim the moon. We would have a treaty drawn up just like we did with the moon.


----------



## Escape Artist

Not in our lifetimes. We don't even have the resources to turn the moon into a staging ground yet. And we need to wait for the private industry like Virgin Galactic and SpaceX to make it possible. And I'd rather not go myself. Earth is too awesome. 

I'd rather see a station and scope on the dark side of the moon that could make the Hubble look like a tinker toy.


----------



## surrender to nothing

Cynical said:


> Because its progress...


"Progress" is just one of the many words proponents of space colonization/transhumanism have vitiated.

Strange choice of name, that there is.


----------



## nkprasad12

Huge waste of resources. Maybe some time in the future when we're all happy and there's world peace and low unemployment and lots of extra whatever to dump in mars.


----------



## Cynical

surrender to nothing said:


> "Progress" is just one of the many words proponents of space colonization/transhumanism have vitiated.
> 
> Strange choice of name, that there is.


Perhaps, but progress is progress imho


----------



## ugh1979

nkprasad12 said:


> Huge waste of resources. Maybe some time in the future when we're all happy and there's world peace and low unemployment and lots of extra whatever to dump in mars.


It's not a huge waste of resources if it means the difference between our species surviving or being wiped out.


----------



## Witan

Yes.


----------



## lshill929

When you mean that earth would be unlivable it means that mankind would be alone responsible for such a situation of earth. He is selfish and greedy to not worry about of environment and only focuses about his own well being and living. So when Earth becomes unlivable then man will surely travel to Mars and it wouldn’t be soon before Mars becomes the same.


----------



## quietgal

I think deep down, most people realize we're screwing the Earth over at a frightening pace, and are fantasizing for an escape. But Earth isn't just something you can use up and throw away, then cruise on over to the local Walmart to pick up a new one. Our fate is tied to having a livable planet - there's no escaping that fact!


----------



## chris11

Yes Mars should be teraformed. Here are 4 reasons why:

1. Climate change may be irreversible as is, and this would lead to devestation. 
2. Human beings arn't particularly rational, and may nuke eachother into oblivion. If the human species is worth preserving, then it would help to have a safe guard in place. 
3. Asteroids could strike the Earth, or Mars, causing an extinction event. Having two worlds could reduce our chances of dying out in this way to 1/2. 
4. We could build a better world on Mars. Since the initial seed colony would be very selective, we would have a population of exceptionally bright individuals, and bright people MAY be less likly to cause wars that would lead to mutual anhilation.


----------



## ladofmad

Assuming that humans get their act together and stop fighting each other, you still face obstacles in the economical, technological, and physiological aspects of space colonization. 

It would take way too much resources and energy to terraform Mars. It's probably better to first colonize the moon and take it from there.


----------



## ugh1979

ladofmad said:


> Assuming that humans get their act together and stop fighting each other, you still face obstacles in the economical, technological, and physiological aspects of space colonization.
> 
> It would take way too much resources and energy to terraform Mars.


All factors that can change with time.



> It's probably better to first colonize the moon and take it from there.


Yes a moon colony would obviously come first.


----------



## chris11

ladofmad said:


> Assuming that humans get their act together and stop fighting each other, you still face obstacles in the economical, technological, and physiological aspects of space colonization.
> 
> It would take way too much resources and energy to terraform Mars. It's probably better to first colonize the moon and take it from there.


You're right, it would take an enormous financial and material investment to tereaform mars, and a moon colonization would be an obvious test of concept. But, given the violent aspect of human nature, it might be a good idea to seperate these populations by as large a distance as possible. In the foreseeable future, mars may be more accessible in terms of the financial cost of the trip, but it would still be a very long trip, quite discouraging if you have to feed 1000000+ solidgers for a year.


----------



## ugh1979

chris11 said:


> You're right, it would take an enormous financial and material investment to tereaform mars, and a moon colonization would be an obvious test of concept. But, given the violent aspect of human nature, it might be a good idea to seperate these populations by as large a distance as possible. In the foreseeable future, mars may be more accessible in terms of the financial cost of the trip, but it would still be a very long trip, quite discouraging if you have to feed 1000000+ solidgers for a year.


So, are you inferring we ship all the Muslims to Mars for example?

I think it's far more likely that a human colony will only be occupied by willing participants from around the world, not prisoners. We'd need people, at first at least, who are productive and most importantly have a wide range of skills for all the things that would need to be done.

We should at least try to make it a peaceful crime free productive society.


----------

