Hi,

I have started a Terraforming website.

http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html

I would appreciate any feedback you might have.

Thanx
Michael

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "alt_cosmos"
> Hi,
>
> I have started a Terraforming website.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html
>
> I would appreciate any feedback you might have.
>
> Thanx
> Michael

Your site is very thorough and for that reason I enjoyed browsing it.

You do go through a lot of elaborate scenarios, i.e. shattering Mars
and using Mercury as a core. Hopefully people will see the futility
of terraforming and adopt the High Frontier concept.

Personally, I think Mars is a dead issue and High Frontier is the
way to go, so I can't give you critical feedback because you're not
beating my sacred cow. You may want to post this site into a Mars
fanatics group and see what kind of response you get. Ask Mike Combs
(another list member) what he encounters. I just love reading his
posts where he plays with the Mars people's assumptions.

Good work.

TangoMan

Mars probably already has enough CO2 frozen to make the atmosphere 1/4 of our own air pressure. Also if you go to the bottom of Valles Marineris or Hellas Basin the air pressure approximately doubles. Over time this would escape but this would be many millions of years.
From: victoriatangoman
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:26 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "alt_cosmos"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have started a Terraforming website.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html
>
> I would appreciate any feedback you might have.
>
> Thanx
> Michael

Your site is very thorough and for that reason I enjoyed browsing it.

You do go through a lot of elaborate scenarios, i.e. shattering Mars
and using Mercury as a core. Hopefully people will see the futility
of terraforming and adopt the High Frontier concept.

Personally, I think Mars is a dead issue and High Frontier is the
way to go, so I can't give you critical feedback because you're not
beating my sacred cow. You may want to post this site into a Mars
fanatics group and see what kind of response you get. Ask Mike Combs
(another list member) what he encounters. I just love reading his
posts where he plays with the Mars people's assumptions.

Good work.

TangoMan

>TangoMan wrote:
>You may want to post this site into a Mars fanatics group and see what kind of
>response you get.

I did and they were very unhappy. Furious and abusive is more accurate.
I've received dozens of emails, pages long, "proving" I'm wrong. I
countered all their arguments with realistic, scientific responses. They
responded in turn, by re-defining words, re-writing chemistry, saying "Kim
Stanley Robinson said so", or by trying to sell their books. The pro-Mars
movement is very popular and their resistance to new ideas is very strong.
I can't understand how people who call themselves scientists can be so
close-minded. Unfortunately, the release of 3D topographical maps of Mars
and the ease of high-definition rendering has made the pro-Mars movement
even stronger. Terraforming, and other forms of space colonisation, needs
to move from science-fiction to science theory, before it can become
science-fact. The pro-Mars movements stubborn indignation is seriously
compromising this progressive change.

>G. Orme wrote:
>Mars probably already has enough CO2 frozen to make the atmosphere 1/4 of our
>own air pressure. Also if you go to the bottom of Valles Marineris or Hellas
>Basin the air pressure approximately doubles. Over time this would escape but
>this would be many millions of years.

The current air pressure at the bottom of the deepest canyon on Mars is
8/1000 of an Earth atmopshere. The issue is not Carbon dioxide but
Hydrogen. Even with a 1 Earth atmosphere, if a planet can't hold Hydrogen
then it can't hold water. Liquid surface water is an essential requirement
of a terraformed planet. Mars just can't hold Hydrogen, even heavy Hydrogen
(Deutrium).

Also, melting the frozen Carbon dioxide at the Martian poles is only a
temporary solution. The thin Martian atmosphere will quickly loose heat to
space and freeze once more.

I will try to publish my email responses on my site aswell.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html

Some of the pro Mars people are indeed sensitive to the idea that Mars may not be able to be terraformed. The figures you give on air pressure on Mars are incorrect. I believe it varies approximately between 7.5 and 11 millibars in air pressure according to the season but this is calculated on ground level. This same question actually came up in sci.astro once years ago in an amusing way. I posed the same question as to what the air pressure would be at the bottom of the deepest place on Mars, and whether liquid water would be more likely to form there. I also asked whether liquid water could run out of the side of craters and being in the higher pressure not sublimate but sink back into the ground and back into the water table.

One of the well known scientists at the time there decided to say that my ideas were utter nonsense. There was one though who cautioned him about it, because at the time NASA was expected to make a big announcement in the next week.

The funny thing was they announced that not only was my theory correct (they didn't quote me obviously) but they believed that was what was happening in some areas. They also mentioned that the air pressure the bottom of Valles Marineris is about double that on the surface. That only increases the range of liquid water to a few extra degrees of temperature though.

One example of a place where liquid water may be flowing now on Mars is Russell Crater. There is also a part of the south pole where the temperature gets very close to zero, perhaps enough for brines to liquefy for long periods. That's because the sun doesn't set in summer for several Martian months.

The point you make about hydrogen is technically correct but the time scales for this to occur are believed to be millions even billions of years. That's why it is believed to be irrelevant in terraforming. There is little hydrogen in the atmosphere there currently so the idea is moot. For this to be a problem the air would be much thicker and contain more water for this process to start up again, and it would take millions of years to occur. For you to assert otherwise you need to publish the equations that demonstrate this.

The frozen air on Mars is likely to have sublimated several times in its history in response to the Argyre and Hellas impacts. The Argyre impact created Elysium Mons which would have supplied heat to mars for millions of years. Hellas created Alba Patera which would also have supplied heat for a long time, far longer than we would be around there. A similar amount of heat could be generated just by dropping a large meteor onto the Martian surface. Another way is for the axial tilt of Mars to change. There are many papers which have calculated that if the axial tilt went to 50 degrees (which it is supposed to do regularly) then all the air on the poles would melt, and most of the ice on the poles would move to the equator. This is because in summer the sun wouldn't set on a wide area around each pole in turn and so the planet gets extra heat.

I have done a lot of research into the South pole of Mars, into the phenomenon known as Martian spiders. You can read about them here:

http://www.martianspiders.com/

Recently I did a more comprehensive study on them which you can read here:

http://newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n03/a/NFS0203a.shtml

There is a lot of information there on temperatures, for example:

"The large eccentricity of Mars' orbit also affects the seasons. The current configuration means aphelion occurs during northern-hemisphere summer; as a result, northern summer is up to 30 degrees colder than southern summer, and the amplitude of the seasonal cycle is 110 K in southern midlatitudes but only 55 K in the north."

http://www.mit.edu/people/goodmanj/terraforming/node6.html

[89] See Figure 2:

http://www-mars.lmd.jussieu.fr/granada2003/abstract/titus.pdf

[90] This shows the shrinking of the polar cap at the same time as the spiders are increasing, Figure 2:

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/2071.pdf

[91] "The seasons in Mars's southern hemisphere include short, very hot summers, and longer, cold winters. The Martian orbit is less circular and more elliptical than Earth's, which means for part of the year the planet is a lot closer to the sun. The southern hemisphere, tilted towards the sun when Mars is closest, has a hotter summer than the other hemisphere. The northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun when Mars is farther away, and so its summers are not as hot."

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/Stuff_about_Space/The_Earth_and_the_Moon/20020322171839.htm

[92] Here the spider areas (mainly on the right side of the inner circle) show a temperature of yellow to orange at Ls 253 degrees, which is -30 to -15 degrees Celsius.

http://www.mars-ice.org/vamp0_Nov27-29(Ls%3)Day_Temp(!Uo!NC).gif

[93] Here at Ls 251 degrees the temperatures show -40 degrees Celsius. Bolometric readings according to Titus can underestimate the temperature by around 20 degrees Celsius if the ground is frost free. http://www.mars-ice.org/spole_2pm_1.gif

[94] Here the temperatures in green get to near zero from 250 to 300 degrees Ls, which is when the spiders are growing. http://www.mars-ice.org/slat_trends.gif

[95] Here the shrinking of the polar cap is shown to favour the spider areas, which are on the right: http://www.mars-ice.org/spole97.html

[96] Here Figure 4 shows the temperatures at Ls 309 degrees. The spider areas are very patchy with some areas still very cold but other areas much warmer. The yellow and orange spots in the bottom right part of the inner circle correspond roughly to spider clusters: http://www.mars-ice.org/iceland.html

[97] "Dark spots appeared as the surface began defrosting in August. Winds occasionally moved the darker material across the surface, leading to dark streaks, NASA said. But all the frost and streaks disappeared by February." http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/02/23/mars.thaw/

In some areas Mars is already close to or above zero. The problem is the temperatures swing wildly because of the thin atmosphere. If you could melt the CO2 there you would have an atmosphere according to some papers (I can post them if you want) of 1/4 or more of the atmosphere of Earth. From there you could have a form of life tailored to can make some of it oxygen. No hydrogen so far to be lost. As this occurred liquid water would occur more often because the air pressure would be above the triple point and ice would melt rather than sublimate. Currently there is only a temperature range of a few degrees, from 0C to 3C where water can remain liquid at 11 millibars. With 1/4 atmosphere this rises (from memory) to 0C to around 11C. This may barely be enough for limited rainfall.

Even though the temperature may be higher than boiling at that air pressure because of the lack of heat evaporation would be slow, and often the water would form a layer of ice or mud. If the water is salty it can stay liquid as low as -50C. In one example a paper referred to a lake in the Russell Crater area (I can post the reference I am going from memory) and under current air pressure he estimated it would take thousands of years for a lake 50 feet deep to disappear as it would freeze in winter, etc.

The words you are using like temporary and quickly are true but there refer to timescales longer than mankind has existed.

From: Michael
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 4:45 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

>TangoMan wrote:
>You may want to post this site into a Mars fanatics group and see what kind of
>response you get.

I did and they were very unhappy. Furious and abusive is more accurate.
I've received dozens of emails, pages long, "proving" I'm wrong. I
countered all their arguments with realistic, scientific responses. They
responded in turn, by re-defining words, re-writing chemistry, saying "Kim
Stanley Robinson said so", or by trying to sell their books. The pro-Mars
movement is very popular and their resistance to new ideas is very strong.
I can't understand how people who call themselves scientists can be so
close-minded. Unfortunately, the release of 3D topographical maps of Mars
and the ease of high-definition rendering has made the pro-Mars movement
even stronger. Terraforming, and other forms of space colonisation, needs
to move from science-fiction to science theory, before it can become
science-fact. The pro-Mars movements stubborn indignation is seriously
compromising this progressive change.

>G. Orme wrote:
>Mars probably already has enough CO2 frozen to make the atmosphere 1/4 of our
>own air pressure. Also if you go to the bottom of Valles Marineris or Hellas
>Basin the air pressure approximately doubles. Over time this would escape but
>this would be many millions of years.

The current air pressure at the bottom of the deepest canyon on Mars is
8/1000 of an Earth atmopshere. The issue is not Carbon dioxide but
Hydrogen. Even with a 1 Earth atmosphere, if a planet can't hold Hydrogen
then it can't hold water. Liquid surface water is an essential requirement
of a terraformed planet. Mars just can't hold Hydrogen, even heavy Hydrogen
(Deutrium).

Also, melting the frozen Carbon dioxide at the Martian poles is only a
temporary solution. The thin Martian atmosphere will quickly loose heat to
space and freeze once more.

I will try to publish my email responses on my site aswell.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/index.html

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "G. Orme" wrote:
>
> The words you are using like temporary and quickly are true but
there refer to timescales longer than mankind has existed.

It was interesting reading through your argument and the evidence
you used to support it. In the end I came to to the conclusion that
the issue is one of nuance with respect to timescale, just as you
point out.

The bigger question may be why the Martians get so hopped up about
efforts of falsifiability. To me that looks more like fanaticism
than scietific objectivity.

So I hope that efforts at tweaking the Martians continues :)

TangoMan

On Monday 01 September 2003 05:10, G. Orme wrote:
(...)
> The point you make about hydrogen is technically correct but the time
> scales for this to occur are believed to be millions even billions of
> years. That's why it is believed to be irrelevant in terraforming. There is
> little hydrogen in the atmosphere there currently so the idea is moot. For
> this to be a problem the air would be much thicker and contain more water
> for this process to start up again, and it would take millions of years to
> occur. For you to assert otherwise you need to publish the equations that
> demonstrate this.
(...)

O'Neilian, I am kind of embarrassed to say that I'm a member of that list.
But, hell, I think that terraforming is a good thought-experiment, though I
hardly believe that it will ever be more than that. :-) The point is: his
definition of terraformed planet is a planet that, after terraformation
properly said, will naturally stay habitable for hundreds of millions of
years.

His motivation to stick to this definition is still unclear to me, but anyway
Mars worshipers and me generally think of terraformation as something to stay
stable during mere historical timeframes...

Lucio

I think a lot of Mars Society people are very positive thinkers about it, you have to be to take on such a big task. There are a lot of problems though, one of the biggest might be contamination if there is life there. There are lots of arguments that any life would be incompatible but if it could live on Mars I don't think it would be hard for it to live here. For example some people think Tardigrades came from Mars and they eat here ok.

The best idea I have seen so far is finding empty lavatubes and living underground. There seem to be some visible around the various volcanoes and they are natural caves like on Earth.
From: victoriatangoman
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:38 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "G. Orme" wrote:
>
> The words you are using like temporary and quickly are true but
there refer to timescales longer than mankind has existed.

It was interesting reading through your argument and the evidence
you used to support it. In the end I came to to the conclusion that
the issue is one of nuance with respect to timescale, just as you
point out.

The bigger question may be why the Martians get so hopped up about
efforts of falsifiability. To me that looks more like fanaticism
than scietific objectivity.

So I hope that efforts at tweaking the Martians continues :)

TangoMan

One big problem is if the Martian spiders turn out to be a life form. If they are I don't know how terraforming will go. They seem to display Fibonacci branching which is only found in life forms. They are never found in inorganic materials.

http://www.martianspiders.com/
From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

On Monday 01 September 2003 05:10, G. Orme wrote:
(...)
> The point you make about hydrogen is technically correct but the time
> scales for this to occur are believed to be millions even billions of
> years. That's why it is believed to be irrelevant in terraforming. There is
> little hydrogen in the atmosphere there currently so the idea is moot. For
> this to be a problem the air would be much thicker and contain more water
> for this process to start up again, and it would take millions of years to
> occur. For you to assert otherwise you need to publish the equations that
> demonstrate this.
(...)

O'Neilian, I am kind of embarrassed to say that I'm a member of that list.
But, hell, I think that terraforming is a good thought-experiment, though I
hardly believe that it will ever be more than that. :-) The point is: his
definition of terraformed planet is a planet that, after terraformation
properly said, will naturally stay habitable for hundreds of millions of
years.

His motivation to stick to this definition is still unclear to me, but anyway
Mars worshipers and me generally think of terraformation as something to stay
stable during mere historical timeframes...

Lucio

Actually I read a lot of posts from a Barry DiGregorio at

http://www.habitablezone.com/space/

for example:

http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/292070.html

From: victoriatangoman
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:38 AM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "G. Orme" wrote:
>
> The words you are using like temporary and quickly are true but
there refer to timescales longer than mankind has existed.

It was interesting reading through your argument and the evidence
you used to support it. In the end I came to to the conclusion that
the issue is one of nuance with respect to timescale, just as you
point out.

The bigger question may be why the Martians get so hopped up about
efforts of falsifiability. To me that looks more like fanaticism
than scietific objectivity.

So I hope that efforts at tweaking the Martians continues :)

TangoMan

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:50, G. Orme wrote:
> One big problem is if the Martian spiders turn out to be a life form. If
> they are I don't know how terraforming will go. They seem to display
> Fibonacci branching which is only found in life forms. They are never found
> in inorganic materials.
(...)

Supposing that Martian Spiders are alive, my view of the future is rather
cynical: if someone in the distant future has the means and the motivation to
terraform Mars, then he (or she) will do so and treat the Martian Spiders in
the same way that we treated Tasmanian wolves, dodo birds, blue ararinhas,
etc.

(But of course maybe just the lower zones of Mars will be terraformable; the
highlands will probably be near-airless even then. Maybe some niches for the
Spiders will remain, or maybe they will even adapt and flourish in the new
environment...)

Lucio Coelho

The spiders, if they could live in the current environment would be pretty hardy. I imagine as terraform progressed they would end up covering most of Mars and save us designing special life forms to live there. Anything that could live in that kind of radiation and be periodically frozen without being wiped out is likely to handle almost anything, especially if it evolved from a time when Mars was wetter and had a higher atmosphere.

Where the spiders are found would be a good place to set up a base or even for a first landing. The temperatures there seem to fluctuate between -60 and -20C according to bolometric reading for about 1/4 of the Martian year. This could be understated by as much as 40C because the bolometer underestimates temperatures by that much when the ground is bare and dark instead of frost covered. Also it is a very average temperature and includes small areas that would be much colder and so some other areas would be warmer to average it out.

In the area around Chasma Australe there are parts which become frost free even though other areas further from the pole still have frost. Some believe there could be a hot spot in the area geologically. The spider growth coincides with the disappearance of the frost and they wither away when the frost returns. Something like this

http://www.martianspiders.com/illustrations/e1201762.jpg

is not easy to explain geologically. They form well after the sublimation temperature of CO2 is passed. Note these branches are above ground and are not channels.

From: Lucio de Souza Coelho
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 04:50, G. Orme wrote:
> One big problem is if the Martian spiders turn out to be a life form. If
> they are I don't know how terraforming will go. They seem to display
> Fibonacci branching which is only found in life forms. They are never found
> in inorganic materials.
(...)

Supposing that Martian Spiders are alive, my view of the future is rather
cynical: if someone in the distant future has the means and the motivation to
terraform Mars, then he (or she) will do so and treat the Martian Spiders in
the same way that we treated Tasmanian wolves, dodo birds, blue ararinhas,
etc.

(But of course maybe just the lower zones of Mars will be terraformable; the
highlands will probably be near-airless even then. Maybe some niches for the
Spiders will remain, or maybe they will even adapt and flourish in the new
environment...)

Lucio Coelho

Hi there!

>Something like this
>
>http://www.martianspiders.com/illustrations/e1201762.jpg
>
>is not easy to explain geologically.

Absolutely...but I'd err on the side of caution and point out that
"geologically" isn't the word to use. "Areologically" - we don't have
enough experience of Mars to answer all the questions, yet.

I'll admit that:

1/ These are undeniably fascinating structures.
2/ I want them to be living.

But I can't personally go further than that.

>They form well after the sublimation temperature of CO2 is passed. Note
>these branches are above ground and are not channels.

Now, are you sure? In that photo, the prominent crater towards the bottom
of the picture suggests that the illumination is from the top of the page,
about the "11 o'clock" position. Am I reading the wrongly?

A casual glance would then suggest that the bulk of the features radiate
away from dips in the terrain (like the one a fifth of the way down the
photo, on the left.) Given the light on the bottom side of the dark
radiating lines, when you can see it (most notably on ones perpendicular to
the light direction), I think they are gullies.

That doesn't preclude the idea that these dark features are alive,
concentrating on localised sinks where nutrients/water might be more
prevalent, and that their dendritic structures help melt the surroundings
thereby allowing more resources to the core.

The "dead" ones are cool - a rough eyeballing of the numbers suggests that
they outnumber the "live" ones about eight to one.

Regards,

Andy

There seems to be no chance these are formed by the wind. The first reason is when they form there is no wind, the wind is only there when the CO2 is sublimating. Also there are plenty of dunes and other features all over Mars produced by wind, plenty going under the same temperatures as the spiders. None of them look remotely like spiders. For example over all of the north pole there is not one spider, and the only difference is that the temperatures are about 30C less there in summer, probably enough to make liquid water out of reach.

The feature in the image isn't a crater it's a mesa. The light is coming from the bottom. This photos is taken in late summer when the frost is returning to the ground. Around this time the spiders start withering. You can see a sequence of this by following the 2 groups of images in the link below. They are set in order of solar longitude which means they run from spring to autumn and show the spiders growing and declining. I also compare them to known examples of dunes, cracks, water channels, etc which look nothing like spiders.

http://www.martianspiders.com/illustrations.htm

Active spiders are never ever gullies, that is easy to show. The inactive areas are sometimes gullies like an imprint. They are also not dendritic patterns, though they have some resemblance to deltas, etc. If you follow branches there are thousands of examples in various images where they move against gravity, going up and down hills and sideways. This is true whether they were above or below ground. Here's some nice shots:

http://www.martianspiders.com/illustrations/e0801169.jpg

http://www.martianspiders.com/illustrations/m0900157.jpg

It's hard to say what the spiders are at this stage. Originally we published a paper on them saying they were probably an outflow that created dendritic channels:

http://www.martianspiders.com/martianspiders.pdf

This is no linger possible though for many reasons. One is these grow when CO2 is disappearing so they can't be made of CO2. Then they disappear when CO2 is returning. Another is there is no reason why any outflow shouldn't just form a puddle like geysers do here, there is no mechanism for a dendritic pattern to form in the first place. When spiders disappear the ground is often flat so there are no channels quite often for rivers to form in the first place. One of the major problems is they clearly seem to be forming Fibonacci patterns, and they are not found in geological systems. People often try to get around that one, but the mathematics of Fibonacci numbers makes it impossible to occur in geological systems. More on those here:

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n03/a/NFS0203a.shtml
From: Andy Goddard
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

Hi there!

>Something like this
>
>http://www.martianspiders.com/illustrations/e1201762.jpg
>
>is not easy to explain geologically.

Absolutely...but I'd err on the side of caution and point out that
"geologically" isn't the word to use. "Areologically" - we don't have
enough experience of Mars to answer all the questions, yet.

I'll admit that:

1/ These are undeniably fascinating structures.
2/ I want them to be living.

But I can't personally go further than that.

>They form well after the sublimation temperature of CO2 is passed. Note
>these branches are above ground and are not channels.

Now, are you sure? In that photo, the prominent crater towards the bottom
of the picture suggests that the illumination is from the top of the page,
about the "11 o'clock" position. Am I reading the wrongly?

A casual glance would then suggest that the bulk of the features radiate
away from dips in the terrain (like the one a fifth of the way down the
photo, on the left.) Given the light on the bottom side of the dark
radiating lines, when you can see it (most notably on ones perpendicular to
the light direction), I think they are gullies.

That doesn't preclude the idea that these dark features are alive,
concentrating on localised sinks where nutrients/water might be more
prevalent, and that their dendritic structures help melt the surroundings
thereby allowing more resources to the core.

The "dead" ones are cool - a rough eyeballing of the numbers suggests that
they outnumber the "live" ones about eight to one.

Regards,

Andy

Hi Greg!

Sorry, there seems to be a slight misunderstanding - I used the term
areology (the "geology" of Mars), not aerology as I think you read it, as a
term to emphasize the alien-ness of trying to understand the actions of
weathering in a low insolation/low atmosphere/low temperature/low water
environment. I wasn't suggesting wind effects here.

>The feature in the image isn't a crater it's a mesa.

Ok, well, that changes things "considerably". ;-)

Interesting stuff. Now all I have to do is mentally turn my crater inside out.

Regards,

Andy

From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]

> Ask Mike Combs
> (another list member) what he encounters. I just love reading his
> posts where he plays with the Mars people's assumptions.

I'll have to admit, when I first hit the web, full of vim and vigor, I set
out to prove that terraforming Mars was impossible. The very first draft of
my Space Settlement FAQ (http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm)
flatly stated that terraforming was impossible. When I shared the first
draft with more-knowledgeable people, I was set straight on some things.
Seems like I was making the same conceptual error which others on this list
have been commenting on: confusion regarding timescales, i.e. processes
which are inevitable on timescales of billions of years don't necessarily
ruin the situation on timescales of thousands of years. I modified my FAQ
to state that even if terraforming was technically possible, it would
involve technologies not yet in hand, and would require centuries of effort.
I think that's the only argument which needs to be made to establish that
High Frontier is a more practical plan than the terraformation of Mars.

Maybe you've come up with a new wrinkle regarding the retention of hydrogen,
but it would be extraordinary to me if the many thinkers in terraforming
hadn't already considered this issue. One thing which aggravates me about
some critics of High Frontier is that they sometimes bring up issues which
first-year physics students could think of, as though the experts who worked
on High Frontier could have overlooked something so basic. (For example, I
just finished debating someone who had gone, "Oh yeah, but what about heat
rejection in a vacuum?" as though he thought he might be the first person in
history to consider such an issue.) I think it's important that we try to
extend the same courtesy to the terraformers that we would appreciate
receiving (though we don't always get it) in return: the assumption that
obvious, major issues have been already thought of and worked through.

I'll second the opinion offered by some others here: Terraformation may even
be possible, but has little prospects of happening in the real world, and
should be consider more an intellectual exercise.

But as far as irritating Mars fans, I don't think you can beat asking them
what the Martians will export in order to balance their trade. Their
answers usually betray the bias that there are certain things you can do on
a planet which you just can't do elsewhere, but they're then unable to
defend their assumptions logically, because they've never before subjected
their starting assumptions to critical thought.

Regards,

Mike Combs

It makes me think of a famous old saying, perhaps it was Mark Twain, "what use is a newborn baby?" From our viewpoint Mars is barely born to us, it is hard to foresee how it will grow. In the fullness of time however I am sure it will fulfil all the faith the Mars Society has in it.
From: Combs, Mike
To: 'spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com'
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]

> Ask Mike Combs
> (another list member) what he encounters. I just love reading his
> posts where he plays with the Mars people's assumptions.

I'll have to admit, when I first hit the web, full of vim and vigor, I set
out to prove that terraforming Mars was impossible. The very first draft of
my Space Settlement FAQ (http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm)
flatly stated that terraforming was impossible. When I shared the first
draft with more-knowledgeable people, I was set straight on some things.
Seems like I was making the same conceptual error which others on this list
have been commenting on: confusion regarding timescales, i.e. processes
which are inevitable on timescales of billions of years don't necessarily
ruin the situation on timescales of thousands of years. I modified my FAQ
to state that even if terraforming was technically possible, it would
involve technologies not yet in hand, and would require centuries of effort.
I think that's the only argument which needs to be made to establish that
High Frontier is a more practical plan than the terraformation of Mars.

Maybe you've come up with a new wrinkle regarding the retention of hydrogen,
but it would be extraordinary to me if the many thinkers in terraforming
hadn't already considered this issue. One thing which aggravates me about
some critics of High Frontier is that they sometimes bring up issues which
first-year physics students could think of, as though the experts who worked
on High Frontier could have overlooked something so basic. (For example, I
just finished debating someone who had gone, "Oh yeah, but what about heat
rejection in a vacuum?" as though he thought he might be the first person in
history to consider such an issue.) I think it's important that we try to
extend the same courtesy to the terraformers that we would appreciate
receiving (though we don't always get it) in return: the assumption that
obvious, major issues have been already thought of and worked through.

I'll second the opinion offered by some others here: Terraformation may even
be possible, but has little prospects of happening in the real world, and
should be consider more an intellectual exercise.

But as far as irritating Mars fans, I don't think you can beat asking them
what the Martians will export in order to balance their trade. Their
answers usually betray the bias that there are certain things you can do on
a planet which you just can't do elsewhere, but they're then unable to
defend their assumptions logically, because they've never before subjected
their starting assumptions to critical thought.

Regards,

Mike Combs

You can also look at e1301971, which is a reimaging of e1201762, which itself was a reimaging of m0902042.

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M09/M0902042.html

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/images/E12/E1201762.html

http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E13/E1301971.html

Try and find 50 places where the spider branches move against gravity, that should be easy.

The next one is the one I found that Arthur C. Clarke became interested in:

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html

From: Andy Goddard
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website

Hi Greg!

Sorry, there seems to be a slight misunderstanding - I used the term
areology (the "geology" of Mars), not aerology as I think you read it, as a
term to emphasize the alien-ness of trying to understand the actions of
weathering in a low insolation/low atmosphere/low temperature/low water
environment. I wasn't suggesting wind effects here.

>The feature in the image isn't a crater it's a mesa.

Ok, well, that changes things "considerably". ;-)

Interesting stuff. Now all I have to do is mentally turn my crater inside out.

Regards,

Andy

From: G. Orme [mailto:mymail@...]

> It makes me think of a famous old saying, perhaps it was Mark Twain, "what
use is a newborn
> baby?" From our viewpoint Mars is barely born to us, it is hard to foresee
how it will grow.
> In the fullness of time however I am sure it will fulfil all the faith the
Mars Society has
> in it.

I'm considerably less optimistic about Mars. I just don't see it being able
to compete economically with asteroids for materials export nor with O'Neill
habitats for desirable living conditions. It can certainly never compete
with the moon for serving near-term (which is to say, Earth-centric)
markets.

One thing which I just can't see is the human race making the many hundreds
of billions of dollars investment necessary to terraform Mars proceeding
from faith in a future-worth which was as yet beyond our vision.

I think the vision the Mars Society has invested in the red planet is
predicated on the assumption that there are many things which are "just too
difficult to do in space" which will in the final analysis turn out to be
largely incorrect. My prediction is that Mars will see unexpected,
overwhelming competition from concepts and locations which Mars advocates
are presently contemptuous and dismissive of.

Regards,

Mike Combs

A major issue in Terraforming that has not come up here yet is
uncertainty and untestability. Given a plan (any plan) to terraform
Mars, what will actually happen if you execute it? The models will
tell you something, but these models will be incredibly difficult to
validate so if you use N models you are likely to get N (if not 2N)
answers. This is because its impossible to create realistic tests to
validate the models and without validate models are, literally, worse
than useless. The range of uncertainty over what will actually happen
to Mars on, say, being hit by a small comet to add water is staggering.
BTW: missile defense suffers from the same problem, untestability
under realistic conditions, although its much more severe in the Mar
terraforming case.

On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 06:05 AM, Combs, Mike wrote:

> From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
>
>> Ask Mike Combs
>> (another list member) what he encounters. I just love reading his
>> posts where he plays with the Mars people's assumptions.
>
> I'll have to admit, when I first hit the web, full of vim and vigor, I
> set
> out to prove that terraforming Mars was impossible. The very first
> draft of
> my Space Settlement FAQ
> (http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm)
> flatly stated that terraforming was impossible. When I shared the
> first
> draft with more-knowledgeable people, I was set straight on some
> things.
> Seems like I was making the same conceptual error which others on this
> list
> have been commenting on: confusion regarding timescales, i.e. processes
> which are inevitable on timescales of billions of years don't
> necessarily
> ruin the situation on timescales of thousands of years. I modified my
> FAQ
> to state that even if terraforming was technically possible, it would
> involve technologies not yet in hand, and would require centuries of
> effort.
> I think that's the only argument which needs to be made to establish
> that
> High Frontier is a more practical plan than the terraformation of Mars.
>
> Maybe you've come up with a new wrinkle regarding the retention of
> hydrogen,
> but it would be extraordinary to me if the many thinkers in
> terraforming
> hadn't already considered this issue. One thing which aggravates me
> about
> some critics of High Frontier is that they sometimes bring up issues
> which
> first-year physics students could think of, as though the experts who
> worked
> on High Frontier could have overlooked something so basic. (For
> example, I
> just finished debating someone who had gone, "Oh yeah, but what about
> heat
> rejection in a vacuum?" as though he thought he might be the first
> person in
> history to consider such an issue.) I think it's important that we
> try to
> extend the same courtesy to the terraformers that we would appreciate
> receiving (though we don't always get it) in return: the assumption
> that
> obvious, major issues have been already thought of and worked through.
>
> I'll second the opinion offered by some others here: Terraformation
> may even
> be possible, but has little prospects of happening in the real world,
> and
> should be consider more an intellectual exercise.
>
> But as far as irritating Mars fans, I don't think you can beat asking
> them
> what the Martians will export in order to balance their trade. Their
> answers usually betray the bias that there are certain things you can
> do on
> a planet which you just can't do elsewhere, but they're then unable to
> defend their assumptions logically, because they've never before
> subjected
> their starting assumptions to critical thought.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

The issue isn't the worth of a newborn baby, it's which baby. From
almost every perspective Mars is a far worse target for initial
colonization than orbit. Mars has easier access to materials and that's
it. Orbit has more energy, easier resupply, easier construction,
easier servicing of Earth markets, and will be a much nicer place to
live (grav control, Og recreation, easier Earth visits, better views,
etc). It's important to note that the best place to live on Mars is
far, far worse than the worst part of Siberia.

On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 06:40 AM, G. Orme wrote:

> It makes me think of a famous old saying, perhaps it was Mark Twain,
> "what use is a newborn baby?" From our viewpoint Mars is barely born
> to us, it is hard to foresee how it will grow. In the fullness of time
> however I am sure it will fulfil all the faith the Mars Society has in
> it.
> From: Combs, Mike
> To: 'spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com'
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:05 PM
> Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: New Terraforming Website
>
> From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
>
>> Ask Mike Combs
>> (another list member) what he encounters. I just love reading his
>> posts where he plays with the Mars people's assumptions.
>
> I'll have to admit, when I first hit the web, full of vim and vigor,
> I set
> out to prove that terraforming Mars was impossible. The very first
> draft of
> my Space Settlement FAQ
> (http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm)
> flatly stated that terraforming was impossible. When I shared the
> first
> draft with more-knowledgeable people, I was set straight on some
> things.
> Seems like I was making the same conceptual error which others on
> this list
> have been commenting on: confusion regarding timescales, i.e.
> processes
> which are inevitable on timescales of billions of years don't
> necessarily
> ruin the situation on timescales of thousands of years. I modified
> my FAQ
> to state that even if terraforming was technically possible, it would
> involve technologies not yet in hand, and would require centuries of
> effort.
> I think that's the only argument which needs to be made to establish
> that
> High Frontier is a more practical plan than the terraformation of
> Mars.
>
> Maybe you've come up with a new wrinkle regarding the retention of
> hydrogen,
> but it would be extraordinary to me if the many thinkers in
> terraforming
> hadn't already considered this issue. One thing which aggravates me
> about
> some critics of High Frontier is that they sometimes bring up issues
> which
> first-year physics students could think of, as though the experts
> who worked
> on High Frontier could have overlooked something so basic. (For
> example, I
> just finished debating someone who had gone, "Oh yeah, but what
> about heat
> rejection in a vacuum?" as though he thought he might be the first
> person in
> history to consider such an issue.) I think it's important that we
> try to
> extend the same courtesy to the terraformers that we would appreciate
> receiving (though we don't always get it) in return: the assumption
> that
> obvious, major issues have been already thought of and worked
> through.
>
> I'll second the opinion offered by some others here: Terraformation
> may even
> be possible, but has little prospects of happening in the real
> world, and
> should be consider more an intellectual exercise.
>
> But as far as irritating Mars fans, I don't think you can beat
> asking them
> what the Martians will export in order to balance their trade. Their
> answers usually betray the bias that there are certain things you
> can do on
> a planet which you just can't do elsewhere, but they're then unable
> to
> defend their assumptions logically, because they've never before
> subjected
> their starting assumptions to critical thought.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.

On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 11:38 AM, victoriatangoman wrote:

> The bigger question may be why the Martians get so hopped up about
> efforts of falsifiability. To me that looks more like fanaticism
> than scietific objectivity.
>

You will notice that all Mars advocates are homo sapiens. They tend to
act very much like other homo sapiens, not to mention other primates.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.