I've got a thought and I'm curious to what the settlers group thinks; terraforming mars-will we get environmentalist wingnuts who boject to it? Say we create mega solar reflectors orbiting the planet to increase it's temperature to melt the ice. Are we going to hear objections based on the notion that we might hurt some native microbe?

Just athought.

Dante D'Anthony
"Tales from the Pandoran Age"
http://pandoranage.mystarship.com/

I don't think that environmental wingnuts would or
should be taken seriously when it comes to
terraforming other planets. The serious objections
will come from those who point out that there is no
good reason to go back down to the bottom of a gravity
well once we're at the top, and that the dismantlng of
Ceres for construction materials for space colonies
would provide 300 to 500 times the surface area of
Earth.

Ed

--- Don DAnthony wrote:

And besides the wingnuts, don't forget the scientists and engineers who would object to terraforming. Mars used to have a healthy atmosphere, but it lost it for 2 main reasons:

1. the gravity is lower than Earth's, so lighter gases float up higher from the surface, and then

2. Mars has no magnetic field like the Earth's since its core has long since frozen due to its small size. No magnetic field means no magnetosphere, which means Mars is unprotected from the solar winds. When Hydrogen and other light weight gases float up too high, the solar winds easily blow them away, leaving Mars with a very thin atmosphere.

No amount of terraforming will ever increase Mars' gravity or restore a planetary magnetic field, therefore any atmosphere "created" on Mars would leak out just like the old one did.

There are many other reasons relating to radiation, mix of available chemicals, etc that I believe make terraforming largely unfeasible, though not necessarily impossible. If it could be done, the costs would be astronomical (no pun intended) and atmospheric maintenance would be one of the primary source of employment and expenditure for any planetary colonists. Some knowledgeable writers disagree with my view, but they have yet to convince me that terraformation could be affordable in any conceivable manner. Of course, we don't know what technology might be available 1000 years from now, but by the time technology makes terraformation feasible enough to be competitive with orbiting colonies, I'm sure we will already have moved on to greater things, like creating new universes in tiny black holes or stuff like that.

For these reasons I believe orbiting space stations would be a superior place for human habitation for the next few hundred years (beyond that speculation becomes impossible due to the technological horizon.) A small station would be easier to create and maintain a proper atmosphere and gravity and so on, rather than trying to force an entire planet to conform to our standards.

Also the comment was made about using solar reflectors to melt the ice in Mars. Because of the low atmospheric pressure on Mars, water cannot exist long in a liquid state. It pretty much instantly sublimates to vapor or freezes to ice, depending on specific conditions. By heating up the ice, much of it would sublimate into gas and rise up high against Mar's weak gravity, and then be blown away by the solar winds. A chemical's state (solid/liquid/gas) are products of both its temperature and the pressure. Some have suggested bombarding Mars with thousands of comets to release gases to thicken the atmosphere, as well as to increase the mass, and thereby the gravity. I see no point in all that. The plan offers no guarantee of success, and just think of how many orbiting stations we could build with all those comets.

Besides, we only have 1 Mars. Once we screw it up, it's gone forever. Might as well let Mars be Mars. But I guess that makes me an environmentalist wingnut!

Douglas May

From: Ed Minchau
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 6:54:05 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Mars

I don't think that environmental wingnuts would or
should be taken seriously when it comes to
terraforming other planets. The serious objections
will come from those who point out that there is no
good reason to go back down to the bottom of a gravity
well once we're at the top, and that the dismantlng of
Ceres for construction materials for space colonies
would provide 300 to 500 times the surface area of
Earth.

Ed

--- Don DAnthony wrote:

>
> I've got a thought and I'm curious to what the
> settlers group thinks; terraforming mars-will we get
> environmentalist wingnuts who boject to it? Say we
> create mega solar reflectors orbiting the planet to
> increase it's temperature to melt the ice. Are we
> going to hear objections based on the notion that we
> might hurt some native microbe?
>
> Just athought.
>
> Dante D'Anthony
> "Tales from the Pandoran Age"
> http://pandoranage. mystarship. com/
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Initiative from Microsoft.
>
http://im.live. com/Messenger/ IM/Join/Default. aspx?souce= EML_WL_
> GoodCause
>
> removed]
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ------
>
> mailto:spacesettlers- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

Well, glad to hear those comments (I agree with them) but I guess I need to reframe my question. All things being equal, various technologies advance and make it practical to terraform. Would the environmentalist take issue with the possibility of disturbing the potential microbes? I think they would. All the reasons noted here were practical-i.e. solar wind, gravitational weakness-but I guess I was wondering about a value call. Would they value the microbes over the potential settlement of a planet for humans?

I know we've all probobly seen it but just for fun...

http://www.futurehi.net/images/space_colony1.jpg

Can you imagine thousands upon thousands of these bad bears?

Change the world with e-mail. Join the im Initiative from Microsoft.

Respected Don DAnthony

What about the environmentalist wingnuts you are likely to have in any space
hab?

People who might object to throwing plastic all around.
People who might object to burning trash in the space hab as is being done
in many parts of the Globe.
People who might insist that the transport system in the space hab should be
nonpolluting.
People who might suggest that the population in the space hab should not
exceed its carrying capacity.
People who might object to trees planted in the space hab being cut in the
dead of the night.

.... etc

Regards
Selvaraj

2008/5/24 Don DAnthony :

Please. I designed four parks with wetlands restoration and have pushed for green certification and monorails in a number of developments I was involved in, as well as New Urbanism as opposed to sprawl. My current project involvement is Leeds Certified, and I've gone as far as to push for solar, aquaculture, and self sufficient agricultural on another development. Obviously intelligent stewardship of the environment is not what I was objecting to. Far from it. But the knee-jerk anti modern, anti-human, cultish quality of the metality of a lot of the environmentalist rhetoric.

Our environment has changed dramatically all through geologic history BEFORE HUMANS WERE INVOLVED. The notion that we can somehow preserve THIS MOMENT in history ad ifinitum is bogus. The Earth will be swallowed up in an expanding Sun someday lest we somehow move it. IMO Humanity will be effective in spreading life throughout the universe-preserving it from world devastating comets, etc etc. And there is the question of "Higher life forms" vs "lower life forms". We are a higher life form, and our well being should not be seen as an infringement on the blind forces of nature or the lower animals. Absolutely we should care for them with kindness, intelligence, and be truly humane. But there is A DIFFERENCE IN KIND between humans and animals. I won't allow that difference in kind to be trampled by someone who places the well being of a frog or a newt above myself.

Sooo, making a short story long...I never advocated for any abuse of the environment-the question, if you remember, was wether potential unknown microbial life on Mars would halt any activities that might make that environment more favorable to human habitation-a wingnut position in my mind. In all reality the universe is probobly full of a gazzillion species of microbes scattered on various worlds.

Where's my can of Lysol?

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: sraj99@gmail.comDate: Sat, 24 May 2008 23:19:10 +0530Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Mars

DAnthony wrote,

.... And there is the question of "Higher life forms" vs "lower life forms".
We are a higher life form, and our well being should not be seen as an
infringement on the blind forces of nature or the lower animals. Absolutely
we should care for them with kindness, intelligence, and be truly humane.
But there is A DIFFERENCE IN KIND between humans and animals. I won't allow
that difference in kind to be trampled by someone who places the well being
of a frog or a newt above myself.....

I am afraid you are sadly mistaken on this point. There is nothing such as
lower form of life and higher form of life, in the sense that we can do away
with any form. The higher forms of life are supported by the lower forms of
life - larger numbers of the lower forms of life are meant to support fewer
numbers of the higher forms of life.

You must keep in mind that Planet Earth is different from a possible future
Space Hab, where we can eliminate Nature and have it all the 'Science Way'.
(Although my non-scientific feeling on the subject is that any society that
tries to eliminate Nature will itself be eliminated). On Planet Earth while
it is possible to eliminate all the higher forms of life, it is impossible
to eliminate the lower forms. Nature is designed on checks and balances and
it has survived for billions of years. We may believe that we are smarter
than Nature, but that still remains to be proven.

Regards
Selvaraj

2008/5/24 Don DAnthony :

Ed,

No matter what course of action is proposed regarding the
use/colonization of space, asteroids, moons or planets, there will
always be intelligent, educated and thoughtful people who will point
out that there is no good reason to do this thing or that thing.
While we talk about using our technology and resources to go to
space, there are those who argue quite sincerely that we should reject
much of our technologically advanced but resource intensive way of
life and return to a more rustic, regionally sustainable lifestyle.
I personally don't favor abandoning our expansion into space and
returning to an agrarian society. There are, however, very intelligent
and well-educated people who see this as our only hope.
When we do get permanently into space there will be disparate groups
intent on building orbiting space colonies, lunar outposts and
planetary settlements. I suspect that what actually gets done will be
the result of a rather familiar mixture of politics, profits and
popular predjudices - much like our present space program. The serious
objections (logical arguments to you or, perhaps, to me) will not
necessarily prevail in the future any more than they do today.

Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau wrote:

'The serious objectionswill come from those who point out that there is nogood reason to go back down to the bottom of a gravity well once we're at the top,' Planetary life IMO will always have an appeal over contructed colonies to a degree; planets are big on a scale that provides a sense of freedom and the landscapes provide for a variety of experience one might not be able to get on a colony. Of course at some point our ability to build will eventually reach the scale of Niven's ringworlds etc so who knows. But the space elevator is probobly going to come into being within 50 years and gravity wells after than will be no more an obstacle that a drive from New York to Washington. The 'good reason' to go up and down the gravity well will be of course the price of land-far cheaper on a planet or a moon than a colony per se I would think. Gravity has its uses in manufacturing as well, much of the automated machinery in use convey objects along a sequential process and the materials are conveyed to fall along a series of processes. It is a force that acts on material, and on planets it it free. Any of you guys see this site? http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000193.html

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: csmyth@...: Sun, 25 May 2008 03:11:59 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars

Ed,No matter what course of action is proposed regarding theuse/colonization of space, asteroids, moons or planets, there willalways be intelligent, educated and thoughtful people who will pointout that there is no good reason to do this thing or that thing.While we talk about using our technology and resources to go tospace, there are those who argue quite sincerely that we should rejectmuch of our technologically advanced but resource intensive way oflife and return to a more rustic, regionally sustainable lifestyle. I personally don't favor abandoning our expansion into space andreturning to an agrarian society. There are, however, very intelligentand well-educated people who see this as our only hope.When we do get permanently into space there will be disparate groupsintent on building orbiting space colonies, lunar outposts andplanetary settlements. I suspect that what actually gets done will bethe result of a rather familiar mixture of politics, profits andpopular predjudices - much like our present space program. The seriousobjections (logical arguments to you or, perhaps, to me) will notnecessarily prevail in the future any more than they do today.Chris --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ed Minchau wrote:>> I don't think that environmental wingnuts would or> should be taken seriously when it comes to> terraforming other planets. The serious objections> will come from those who point out that there is no> good reason to go back down to the bottom of a gravity> well once we're at the top, and that the dismantlng of> Ceres for construction materials for space colonies> would provide 300 to 500 times the surface area of> Earth.> > Ed

--- In spacesettlers, Don DAnthony wrote:

> Sooo, making a short story long...I never advocated for any abuse of
> the environment-the question, if you remember, was wether potential
> unknown microbial life on Mars would halt any activities that might
> make that environment more favorable to human habitation-a wingnut
> position in my mind.

By the time we are able to terraform Mars or any other planet, the
question of Martian microbes will have long been settled. It becomes
a question of harming an understood environment with known life forms
(or known not to have life forms), instead of a "but what if there's
life" question. Also...

> In all reality the universe is probobly full of a gazzillion species
> of microbes scattered on various worlds.
>
> Where's my can of Lysol?

Are any of these microbes useful? Once the sample size of life
exceeds one (which is what we have now: one kind of life), biology
makes huge jumps. Also, there's always the possibility that the Rock
Bacteria of Mars or the Trisexual Jellyfish of Europa or the
Quartz-Eating Ant-Things of Tau Ceti IV have medicinal, industrial, or
otherwise useful properties.

So it isn't just the "rights" of other life forms, but their
usefulness. If nothing else, they will have scientific value.

Good point, and you're absolutely on target with what will happen if they are discovered-pharmecutical companies and governments will be all over that to see if it has military and or industrial applications.

You got any more info on that trisexual jellyfish from Europa, there's this dancer I'm dating who swing both ways and....

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: sailorbarsoom@...: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:24:29 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Mars

--- In spacesettlers, Don DAnthony wrote:> Sooo, making a short story long...I never advocated for any abuse of> the environment-the question, if you remember, was wether potential> unknown microbial life on Mars would halt any activities that might> make that environment more favorable to human habitation-a wingnut> position in my mind.By the time we are able to terraform Mars or any other planet, thequestion of Martian microbes will have long been settled. It becomesa question of harming an understood environment with known life forms(or known not to have life forms), instead of a "but what if there'slife" question. Also...> In all reality the universe is probobly full of a gazzillion species> of microbes scattered on various worlds.>> Where's my can of Lysol?Are any of these microbes useful? Once the sample size of lifeexceeds one (which is what we have now: one kind of life), biologymakes huge jumps. Also, there's always the possibility that the RockBacteria of Mars or the Trisexual Jellyfish of Europa or theQuartz-Eating Ant-Things of Tau Ceti IV have medicinal, industrial, orotherwise useful properties.So it isn't just the "rights" of other life forms, but theirusefulness. If nothing else, they will have scientific value.

Read some of the comments here.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/supercomputers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208400239