FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Living on Mars





xxmassive
National Geo has started a new program named Living On Mars..


A NASA scientist believes humans may one day be living on a Mars with blue skies, oceans, rivers and forests. If money were no object, he says we could do it now. See the first in-depth visualisation of what it would take to turn a cold, dead red planet into a green, living world.

Mars is a planet that's been freeze-dried and bathed in ultraviolet radiation for billions of years. The average temperature is 63C below zero. The carbon dioxide atmosphere is as thin as it would be on a mountain three times the height of Mount Everest, yet NASA scientist Chris McKay thinks humans may one day be living on a Mars with blue skies, oceans, rivers, and pine forests. Although that day may be hundreds of years in the future, if money were no object he believes we could do it now, with present day technology. Award winning writer/producer Mark Davis and legendary Mars animator Dan Maas collaborate with McKay on the first in-depth visualisation of what it would take to turn a cold, dead red planet into a green, living world.
ocalhoun
Perhaps we could terraform Mars, but until space travel becomes much, much cheaper, it would be more cost-effective to build free-floating space stations or colonize the moon.

Also, I'm not so sure about the 'with existing technology' claim... What existing technology could perform the most difficult task- modifying the atmosphere?
Indi
The same "technology" we're using to modify our own atmosphere. ^_^;

i think xxmassive's terminology is a little vague. We could start terraforming Mars now (if cost were no object), but it would take many decades before it would be done well enough for us to live there comfortably.
ocalhoun
Indi wrote:
The same "technology" we're using to modify our own atmosphere. ^_^;

How could we do that in an atmosphere already dominated by CO2?
1: Already has about as much greenhouse effect as it can.
2: How can we burn fossil fuels in a place that lacks both fossil fuels and oxygen?
3: Wouldn't reducing the CO2 to breathable levels reverse the process?
Indi
Mars' atmosphere is "dominated" by CO2 in the sense that what little atmosphere there is is like 90% CO2... but 90% of pretty much nothing is... pretty much nothing. There's plenty of room for more CO2, and adding it to the atmosphere will help thicken the atmosphere. So:

  1. Mars doesn't have anywhere near as much greenhouse effect as it could, and given that it's a bloody cold planet for us, we want it to have more so it will be hotter.

  2. Fossil fuels? Who needs fossil fuels? Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, sure, but... if you're going to ship the fossil fuels to get the CO2, why not just ship the CO2? And we don't even need to do that. If we want to flood the atmosphere with CO2, there's plenty available on Mars. It's all frozen in the poles. All we need to do is either point fields of huge reflectors at the frozen polar CO2 (or take advantage of the serendipity: build science stations with tons of nuclear power stations that use the polar CO2 as coolant, which gives you power+terraforming gases in one shot). And it's the same thing as with Earth... once you start the process, it is self-accelerating. If you put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise the temperature, more of the poles will melt, which will release more CO2, which will raise the temperature, which will melt the poles more, which will release more CO2... and so on until all the frozen CO2 in the poles is in the atmosphere... which is a good thing, because that would mean the planet is no longer cold enough for CO2 to freeze. ^_^;

  3. Why would we want to reduce the CO2 to breathable levels? Why not increase the oxygen, nitrogen, etc. to breathable levels instead? Once we get all the CO2 we can into the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure and the temperature will be high enough for some Earth life. Then we can start using algae and fungi to suck CO2 out of the air and the rocks (mostly the rocks of course) and dump oxygen and other stuff into the air. And voilà: thus we kickstart a Terran ecosystem. Once the algae and lichen and other crap have put enough oxygen in the air and loamed up the Martian soil, we can begin planting more advanced plants, and seeding the soil with worms. And then... crops... livestock... and lo, there's your new world.
xxmassive
Living on mars isn't possible if you don't have this there.



The sand will protect us of the UV-radiation on this image it isn't there but this is a kind of the first step. Next we need to take a other step that's building industry with importing and exporting alot! importing factory stuff to build factory's with and plants. Exporting raw materials, materials and products because on mars you've alot usefull raw materials that we can use this is very attractive for all country's on earth so when we have that done. It will go faster and if we make factory's we get more: CO2 gas emissions and if we've that we get a atm probably

but watch the intro of the program:

-- Can't find it just watch national geographic it's a program reclame--

and watch this either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovBBqVtqCGI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnRdXthmvzw
ProwerBot
If we were to be able to go to mars and start pumping oxygen into its atmosphere, after a long time it would be a place where you could survive like we do on earth. Until then, the most we can hope for are living under mars' soil.
metalfreek
I think its not possible for atleast another 100 years. There are too many things to manage.
xxmassive
metalfreek wrote:
... There are too many things to manage.


Like what?

Only thing we've to take care off is getting the atmosphere the climate, the plants. After that the hole planet will be run like earth.

I'll explain it more:

Why creating a atmosphere and how? Because we, the plants and the animals are able to breath and grew. By planting plants.

How to create a climate? This is already there, only now it is to cold to make there plants and give mars oxygen. How warm up the planet. Read my other posts.

How to create plants? If you did watched the program you know it but they said: If we start with moss and alg. This plant can survive on much places. After we plant that we go over on grasses than bushes, trees and a lot of other plants will grew up by their self. These plant will make oxygen for us.

xx Fleuv
Jinx
There is one big problem - Mars doesn't have a robust magnetosphere like the Earth does. The magnetosphere protects us from a lot of cosmic radiation. Mars doesn't seem to have a rotating metal core in a molten mantle of magma to produce a magnetic field, or if it does it's not turning as strongly as the Earth's.

Now, adding an atmosphere full of water vapor and an ozone layer would help a lot against radiation, but not as much as a strong magnetic field.

Then there's this - is Mars' gravity, being only 1/3 that of Earth, strong enough to keep a thick atmosphere from bleeding off into space?
yagnyavalkya
Indi wrote:
Mars' atmosphere is "dominated" by CO2 in the sense that what little atmosphere there is is like 90% CO2... but 90% of pretty much nothing is... pretty much nothing. There's plenty of room for more CO2, and adding it to the atmosphere will help thicken the atmosphere. So:

  1. Mars doesn't have anywhere near as much greenhouse effect as it could, and given that it's a bloody cold planet for us, we want it to have more so it will be hotter.

  2. Fossil fuels? Who needs fossil fuels? Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, sure, but... if you're going to ship the fossil fuels to get the CO2, why not just ship the CO2? And we don't even need to do that. If we want to flood the atmosphere with CO2, there's plenty available on Mars. It's all frozen in the poles. All we need to do is either point fields of huge reflectors at the frozen polar CO2 (or take advantage of the serendipity: build science stations with tons of nuclear power stations that use the polar CO2 as coolant, which gives you power+terraforming gases in one shot). And it's the same thing as with Earth... once you start the process, it is self-accelerating. If you put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise the temperature, more of the poles will melt, which will release more CO2, which will raise the temperature, which will melt the poles more, which will release more CO2... and so on until all the frozen CO2 in the poles is in the atmosphere... which is a good thing, because that would mean the planet is no longer cold enough for CO2 to freeze. ^_^;

  3. Why would we want to reduce the CO2 to breathable levels? Why not increase the oxygen, nitrogen, etc. to breathable levels instead? Once we get all the CO2 we can into the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure and the temperature will be high enough for some Earth life. Then we can start using algae and fungi to suck CO2 out of the air and the rocks (mostly the rocks of course) and dump oxygen and other stuff into the air. And voilà: thus we kickstart a Terran ecosystem. Once the algae and lichen and other crap have put enough oxygen in the air and loamed up the Martian soil, we can begin planting more advanced plants, and seeding the soil with worms. And then... crops... livestock... and lo, there's your new world.

How do we maintain an ambient temperature for cellular metabolism?
Indi
Jinx wrote:
There is one big problem - Mars doesn't have a robust magnetosphere like the Earth does. The magnetosphere protects us from a lot of cosmic radiation. Mars doesn't seem to have a rotating metal core in a molten mantle of magma to produce a magnetic field, or if it does it's not turning as strongly as the Earth's.

Now, adding an atmosphere full of water vapor and an ozone layer would help a lot against radiation, but not as much as a strong magnetic field.

There are two answers to this concern. The first is the obvious "live underground" answer. But the second is more useful.

When we build up the atmosphere to make it breathable, we don't need to replicate Earth's atmosphere exactly. In fact, that would be silly. Earth's atmosphere is like 70-80% nitrogen, which doesn't do a lick of good for us except for keeping the partial pressure of oxygen down (in other words, just about the only good the nitrogen that makes up 3/4 of our atmosphere does for us is protect us from oxygen poisoning). But we can, and do (for example, in SCUBA mixtures) use other gases for that purpose (and we can use a much richer oxygen mix).

So, what if we used really heavy gases like CFCs and other halocarbons (currently banned on Earth) to raise the atmospheric pressure without raising the partial pressure of oxygen? These heavier gases have several benefits over plain nitrogen - and even methane. They block and absorb more radiation (which not only helps protect us from the radiation, but at the same time increases the temperature), and can act as a "bubble" to hold the rest of the atmosphere in. Add the fact that Mars gets much less radiation to begin with, and it becomes quite achievable to bring the surface radiation levels down to tolerable levels.

(Also, don't forget that we will be progressing technologically through all of the terraforming stages. By the time we're ready to walk on the surface there, we'll probably have cured cancer and be able to create ways to resist and/or repair most radiation damage anyway.)

Jinx wrote:
Then there's this - is Mars' gravity, being only 1/3 that of Earth, strong enough to keep a thick atmosphere from bleeding off into space?

Oh yes, definitely. Or rather, that depends on precisely what you're asking.

If you're asking "can it hold a sufficient atmosphere permanently"? No, it can't.

But if you're asking whether it can hold a sufficient atmosphere long enough for terraforming to be worthwhile, then yes. If we built up a thick atmosphere, it would be blown away by solar winds. However, that would take millions of years (whereas it would only take us a dozen or so decades to build up the atmosphere). If we keep replenishing the atmosphere by comet burns, we'll have no problems whatsoever maintaining a thick enough atmosphere. While technically that means that (to answer your question directly) Mars can't keep the atmosphere per se, it isn't really a problem, because it loses it much, much more slowly than we can replenish it - by a factor of thousands or more.

yagnyavalkya wrote:
Indi wrote:
Mars' atmosphere is "dominated" by CO2 in the sense that what little atmosphere there is is like 90% CO2... but 90% of pretty much nothing is... pretty much nothing. There's plenty of room for more CO2, and adding it to the atmosphere will help thicken the atmosphere. So:

  1. Mars doesn't have anywhere near as much greenhouse effect as it could, and given that it's a bloody cold planet for us, we want it to have more so it will be hotter.

  2. Fossil fuels? Who needs fossil fuels? Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, sure, but... if you're going to ship the fossil fuels to get the CO2, why not just ship the CO2? And we don't even need to do that. If we want to flood the atmosphere with CO2, there's plenty available on Mars. It's all frozen in the poles. All we need to do is either point fields of huge reflectors at the frozen polar CO2 (or take advantage of the serendipity: build science stations with tons of nuclear power stations that use the polar CO2 as coolant, which gives you power+terraforming gases in one shot). And it's the same thing as with Earth... once you start the process, it is self-accelerating. If you put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise the temperature, more of the poles will melt, which will release more CO2, which will raise the temperature, which will melt the poles more, which will release more CO2... and so on until all the frozen CO2 in the poles is in the atmosphere... which is a good thing, because that would mean the planet is no longer cold enough for CO2 to freeze. ^_^;

  3. Why would we want to reduce the CO2 to breathable levels? Why not increase the oxygen, nitrogen, etc. to breathable levels instead? Once we get all the CO2 we can into the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure and the temperature will be high enough for some Earth life. Then we can start using algae and fungi to suck CO2 out of the air and the rocks (mostly the rocks of course) and dump oxygen and other stuff into the air. And voilà: thus we kickstart a Terran ecosystem. Once the algae and lichen and other crap have put enough oxygen in the air and loamed up the Martian soil, we can begin planting more advanced plants, and seeding the soil with worms. And then... crops... livestock... and lo, there's your new world.

How do we maintain an ambient temperature for cellular metabolism?

?

Why are you asking a question that is answered directly by the post you quoted?
yagnyavalkya
actually I was wondering how do we "maintain" the ambient temp since the process you have exemplified will again contribute to raise in the temperature gradually after reaching a desired temp
one more thing "what about water?"
yagnyavalkya
Indi wrote:
Earth's atmosphere is like 70-80% nitrogen, which doesn't do a lick of good for us except for keeping the partial pressure of oxygen down (in other words, just about the only good the nitrogen that makes up 3/4 of our atmosphere does for us is protect us from oxygen poisoning).


Actually Nitrogen's ubiquity in the environment is directly proportional to its necessity for life on this planet
The growth of all organisms depends on the availability of nitrogen, which is required in large amounts as an essential component of proteins, nucleic acids and other cellular constituents. The nitrogen cycle, makes atmospheric nitrogen available for use in plants and animals and then is subsequently returned to the atmosphere is a critical process for life.
Indi
yagnyavalkya wrote:
actually I was wondering how do we "maintain" the ambient temp since the process you have exemplified will again contribute to raise in the temperature gradually after reaching a desired temp

If you want to limit the temperature increase, just limit the amount of greenhouse gases you pour into the atmosphere.

yagnyavalkya wrote:
one more thing "what about water?"

What about it? There is plenty of water on Mars. It's just currently all (or mostly) frozen. And if we need more, water is hardly scarce. We'll just drop a few ice asteroids into the atmosphere as needed.

yagnyavalkya wrote:
Indi wrote:
Earth's atmosphere is like 70-80% nitrogen, which doesn't do a lick of good for us except for keeping the partial pressure of oxygen down (in other words, just about the only good the nitrogen that makes up 3/4 of our atmosphere does for us is protect us from oxygen poisoning).


Actually Nitrogen's ubiquity in the environment is directly proportional to its necessity for life on this planet
The growth of all organisms depends on the availability of nitrogen, which is required in large amounts as an essential component of proteins, nucleic acids and other cellular constituents. The nitrogen cycle, makes atmospheric nitrogen available for use in plants and animals and then is subsequently returned to the atmosphere is a critical process for life.

To quote the whole paragraph:
Indi wrote:
When we build up the atmosphere to make it breathable, we don't need to replicate Earth's atmosphere exactly. In fact, that would be silly. Earth's atmosphere is like 70-80% nitrogen, which doesn't do a lick of good for us except for keeping the partial pressure of oxygen down (in other words, just about the only good the nitrogen that makes up 3/4 of our atmosphere does for us is protect us from oxygen poisoning). But we can, and do (for example, in SCUBA mixtures) use other gases for that purpose (and we can use a much richer oxygen mix).
As you can see, I was clearly talking only about what is necessary to make a breathable atmosphere. In fact, i went out of my way to say "... we don't need to replicate Earth's atmosphere exactly. In fact, that would be silly."

And it makes no sense to try and duplicate the nitrogen cycle on Mars the same way it exists on Earth, because while the atmosphere is 70-80% nitrogen, it is almost all in the form of N₂, which is a terrible way to store nitrogen. Only a very small handful of organisms can suck N₂ from the atmosphere and put it in the soil. It is illogical to pump a new atmosphere full of N₂ just because that's how it happens to be on Earth - if you want to put N₂ in the soil, there are tons of more efficient ways to do it, such as using nitrate fertilizers (as we do on Earth, when we don't want to wait for a plot of land to be naturally nitrogenated), or growing custom algae and fungi that can get N₂ out of methane (which may naturally be released as the Martian ice melts).

In fact, the way to farm on the surface of Mars will probably involve laying down a mat of black algae to suck up methane and poop nitrates, then planting your crops in that. Once the crops suck all the nitrogen out of the soil, you would give the field a break by laying another layer of algae down to replenish it, and so on, rotating your fields just like you do on Earth.

But in the short term, even that is unnecessary. Most farming would probably done aeroponically, so all the nitrates would be added to the mixture. In other words, the nitrogen cycle is completely unnecessary.
yagnyavalkya
Indi wrote:

But in the short term, even that is unnecessary. Most farming would probably done aeroponically, so all the nitrates would be added to the mixture. In other words, the nitrogen cycle is completely unnecessary.

Yeah I guess you have got a point there
but overall to make mars livable seems that there should be a lot of work and money and of course time
what about the alternative of making the oceans of the earth livable I guess that would be economically more attractive?
ocalhoun
yagnyavalkya wrote:

what about the alternative of making the oceans of the earth livable I guess that would be economically more attractive?

Much more economical.

It might also be cheaper to build earth or solar orbiting space stations, or colonize the moon.
Indi
All true, but the question was that "if money is no object", is it possible today? The answer, i think, is no, but it is possible to start the process today. By the time the project is at a stage where it is ready for the kinds of technologies we don't currently have, we should have those technologies.

In other words, if we wanted to terraform Mars, and if money was no object, we could start a terraforming project right now.
yagnyavalkya
If Money is no consideration then I guess it can be done but with a lot of planning and good execution
slashnburn99
Id live on the moon if it was cheaper than Earth
lucian0127
Indi wrote:
Mars' atmosphere is "dominated" by CO2 in the sense that what little atmosphere there is is like 90% CO2... but 90% of pretty much nothing is... pretty much nothing. There's plenty of room for more CO2, and adding it to the atmosphere will help thicken the atmosphere. So:

  1. Mars doesn't have anywhere near as much greenhouse effect as it could, and given that it's a bloody cold planet for us, we want it to have more so it will be hotter.

  2. Fossil fuels? Who needs fossil fuels? Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, sure, but... if you're going to ship the fossil fuels to get the CO2, why not just ship the CO2? And we don't even need to do that. If we want to flood the atmosphere with CO2, there's plenty available on Mars. It's all frozen in the poles. All we need to do is either point fields of huge reflectors at the frozen polar CO2 (or take advantage of the serendipity: build science stations with tons of nuclear power stations that use the polar CO2 as coolant, which gives you power+terraforming gases in one shot). And it's the same thing as with Earth... once you start the process, it is self-accelerating. If you put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to raise the temperature, more of the poles will melt, which will release more CO2, which will raise the temperature, which will melt the poles more, which will release more CO2... and so on until all the frozen CO2 in the poles is in the atmosphere... which is a good thing, because that would mean the planet is no longer cold enough for CO2 to freeze. ^_^;

  3. Why would we want to reduce the CO2 to breathable levels? Why not increase the oxygen, nitrogen, etc. to breathable levels instead? Once we get all the CO2 we can into the atmosphere, the atmospheric pressure and the temperature will be high enough for some Earth life. Then we can start using algae and fungi to suck CO2 out of the air and the rocks (mostly the rocks of course) and dump oxygen and other stuff into the air. And voilà: thus we kickstart a Terran ecosystem. Once the algae and lichen and other crap have put enough oxygen in the air and loamed up the Martian soil, we can begin planting more advanced plants, and seeding the soil with worms. And then... crops... livestock... and lo, there's your new world.


Agreed and expect much hotter than earth.
vibrants
I wanna live on mars lol
ocalhoun
slashnburn99 wrote:
Id live on the moon if it was cheaper than Earth

Highly unlikely unless the Earth became extremely overcrowded, or living on the moon was subsidized.
lucian0127
ocalhoun wrote:

Highly unlikely unless the Earth became extremely overcrowded, or living on the moon was subsidized.


Hmm... So theres a possibility to live in other planet someday...
LittleBlackKitten
It'll never happen, even if we COULD start it. You'd have all the big name companies fighting for land rights, and you'll have all those people who "own" 50 acres of moon and mars space on a deed because some online company sold it to them. It's will turn into one massive fight over who gets to call the colony, and then we'll end up with like "Rogers Telus parntership colony" or "Interspacial Bell Mobility world", "McDonald's Station" or even "Colony of Scotiabank". Then once the big companies dominate the entire thing, countries will want their spots and THEIR dominance, and we will have a massive global war because everyone wants the best spots and then once everything's settled and New Russia Colony or New China Colony is born, We'll have to pay a million a square foot...

The UN won't let it happen. We can't even keep EARTH alive and in one piece, nevermind a SECOND planet or colony. The day when no one kills someone else, when a species of plant animal or germ doesn't become extint, when we stop polluting our atmosphere, when we stop hating other countries or destroying other lives, then and MAYBE then, we can start on it; but frankly, humankind is too arrogant, angry, selfish, and violent for the scientific minds to really get anywhere good. That's why we haven't already built a space station, that's why we have only been ON the moon once, that's why there isn't anyone that has BEEN to Mars, that's why our planet is shattered with war and "My country, your country".

Will never happen, as sad as that sounds.
ronbarak
Isn't there a problem with Mars' core (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Mars#Core), and magnetic field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_internal_structure) that prevents the creation of Van Allen radiation belts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt) there, so there's no protection on Mars from the solar wind, which means no possibility for living organisms to survive on Mar's surface ?
Also, isn't Mars' gravity too small, so that Hydrogen just floats out to space ? Wouldn't this create a problem in forming water ?
addife
NASA couldn't make the Ares project come though, how can we imagine a project like this? If we take more then 10 years to complete a project that we already did it in the past, how can we make a project like this one? Just think about it. Very Happy
ronbarak
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
It'll never happen, even if we COULD start it. ...

The day when no one kills someone else, when a species of plant animal or germ doesn't become extint, when we stop polluting our atmosphere, when we stop hating other countries or destroying other lives, then and MAYBE then, we can start on it; ...


Try to look at it the other way around: once we start colonising areas outside the Earth, wouldn't our petty squabbles and wars seem insignificant ?
Especially if we face some challenges as part of the Human race, not just as citizens of our respective countries: won't then the unifying be more important than the differentiating ?
rshanthakumar
Colonising the near earth will start first even before colonising Mars. The near earth includes Moon and the space where we can build space stations. This would help us understand space living and the way space age life will be.

Colonising of Mars could really happen only after the resource crunch bites us in earth to a greater extent and the cost of producing the same on Earth could turn costlier. Eventually it would happen!
LittleBlackKitten
No, the petty squabbles won't stop, it will get worse, because then every country will want to be the first to colonize mars/the moon and it will be a stupid competition that will end up in war...
mengshi200
my appoint is ,if mankind don't change human body struture,it will be very expensive for living outer space.
yagnyavalkya
Deleted
kelseymh
You probably wanted to actually read what you got off the Internet before posting it. Only three of your citations are actually about colonization/exploration issues. Two of them (2 and 4) are about a liver support protocol with the acronym "MARS", one is a book by Oliver Sacks, and four are about searching for life on Mars, not about humans working there.

yagnyavalkya wrote:
Here are the references of a set of scientific articles on living in Mars
I dont have the full text
1 Yamashita M, Ishikawa Y, Kitaya Y, Goto E, Arai M, Hashimoto H, TOMITA YOKOTANI K, Hirafuji M, Omori K and Shiraishi A 2006 An overview of challenges in modeling heat and mass transfer for living on Mars. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1077, 232-243.
2 Choi J Y, Bae S H, Yoon S K, Cho S H, Yang J M, Han J Y, Ahn B M, Chung K W, Sun H S and Kim D G 2005 Preconditioning by extracorporeal liver support (MARS) of patients with cirrhosis and severe liver failure evaluated for living donor liver transplantation-a pilot study. Liver International 25, 740.
3 Rothschild L J 1990 Earth analogs for Martian life. Microbes in evaporites, a new model system for life on Mars. Icarus 88, 246-260.

4 Marcos A, Fisher R A, Ham J M, Shiffman M L, Sanyal A J, Luketic V A C, Sterling R K, Fulcher A S and Posner M P 2000 Liver regeneration and function in donor and recipient after right lobe adult to adult living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 69, 1375-1379.
5 Sacks O and Freeman A 1994 An anthropologist on Mars. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1, 234-240.
6 Klein H P, Horowitz N H and Biemann K 1992 The search for extant life on Mars. Mars 1, 1221-1233.

7 Levin G V 1988 The life on Mars dilemma and the sample return mission. p. 109.
8 Klein H P 1999 Did Viking discover life on Mars? Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 29, 625-631.
9 McKay C P 1988 Living and morking on Mars. pp. 511-522.
yagnyavalkya
kelseymh wrote:
You probably wanted to actually read what you got off the Internet before posting it. Only three of your citations are actually about colonization/exploration issues. Two of them (2 and 4) are about a liver support protocol with the acronym "MARS", one is a book by Oliver Sacks, and four are about searching for life on Mars, not about humans working there.

yagnyavalkya wrote:
Here are the references of a set of scientific articles on living in Mars
I dont have the full text
1 Yamashita M, Ishikawa Y, Kitaya Y, Goto E, Arai M, Hashimoto H, TOMITA YOKOTANI K, Hirafuji M, Omori K and Shiraishi A 2006 An overview of challenges in modeling heat and mass transfer for living on Mars. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1077, 232-243.
2 Choi J Y, Bae S H, Yoon S K, Cho S H, Yang J M, Han J Y, Ahn B M, Chung K W, Sun H S and Kim D G 2005 Preconditioning by extracorporeal liver support (MARS) of patients with cirrhosis and severe liver failure evaluated for living donor liver transplantation-a pilot study. Liver International 25, 740.
3 Rothschild L J 1990 Earth analogs for Martian life. Microbes in evaporites, a new model system for life on Mars. Icarus 88, 246-260.

4 Marcos A, Fisher R A, Ham J M, Shiffman M L, Sanyal A J, Luketic V A C, Sterling R K, Fulcher A S and Posner M P 2000 Liver regeneration and function in donor and recipient after right lobe adult to adult living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation 69, 1375-1379.
5 Sacks O and Freeman A 1994 An anthropologist on Mars. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1, 234-240.
6 Klein H P, Horowitz N H and Biemann K 1992 The search for extant life on Mars. Mars 1, 1221-1233.

7 Levin G V 1988 The life on Mars dilemma and the sample return mission. p. 109.
8 Klein H P 1999 Did Viking discover life on Mars? Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 29, 625-631.
9 McKay C P 1988 Living and morking on Mars. pp. 511-522.

Sorry
inuyasha
That's an old topic. Very Happy Mars has always been the first planet where we human beings want to settle. But I fear most people would rather stay on earth.
Bluedoll
Certainly there will be some enthusiasm to go exploring in space again and to do a first, that is land on mars. We have already landed on the moon so it is old stuff. Getting a space program going can actually relieve some of the economic stress not burden it down but saying the purpose is to colony of mars is dreaming. There must be a good reason in place to go there but I doubt colonization is very rational. Mars the sister planet to earth is a dead planet because she was destined to be. There is more to making a planet a living place than just pumping in gas. You need to start with the core of the planet or the revitalization will be short lived. You could try living in a bubble for a holiday but if you are serious about bringing a planet to life, you need to think long term. Anything you do to it will take a very long time to have an effect if anything substantial.
ocalhoun
Bluedoll wrote:
You need to start with the core of the planet

What's wrong with the core of Mars?
vidafenomenal
dreaming is good.
powers1983
If the social, political and economic problems are ignored to focus only on the technical challenges, then it obviously becomes much more probable.

But the method would be determined by the end goal:
Would you wish to replicate as near as possible the conditions on Earth?
Do you just want the atmosphere able to support human life?
Do you just want to have a self-sustaining colony in pressurised habitats either on the surface or underground?

We have the technology to do all of these things at present (maybe not the most efficient or effective way in some cases) but the biggest difference is the time it would take to achieve.

We have the current technology to transport large amounts of material to Mars. Although it isn't a trivial matter to just make the current spacecraft much larger, the problem currently is not the difficulty but the cost. Once your spacecraft arrives on the surface then it could initially serve as the habitat whilst a more permanent settlement was constructed. Then the artificial or biological methods mentioned in other posts would begin the process of adding to and modifying the Martian atmosphere.

Given that cost has been ignored then either you could ship more raw materials/food/oxygen/water etc from the Earth on a regular basis, or you would have taken enough with you to last until you had a large biosphere (for example) with enough livestock/plants etc to be able to support your colony.

The question is not really 'is it possible?' but more 'can we afford it?'.
Bluedoll
Quote:
What's wrong with the core of Mars?


Blueberries. Of course much of what we (the human race) see, can only be interrupted and what do see, we draw conclusions on and/or develop a theory on what we believe is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Mars
Quote:
The elemental composition of Mars is different from Earth′s in several significant ways. First, Martian meteorite analysis suggests that the planet’s mantle is about twice as rich in iron as the Earth’s mantle. Second, its core is more rich in sulfur. Third, the Martian mantle is richer in potassium and phosphorus than Earth’s, and fourth, the Martian crust contains a higher percentage of volatile elements such as sulfur and chlorine than the Earth's crust does. Many of these conclusions are supported by in situ analyses of rocks and soils on the Martian surface.



http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-03-06-mars-water_x.htm
Quote:
Then, the planet lost its magnetic field. We sent instruments to Mars (onboard the Mars Global Surveyor satellite) to measure the magnetic field, and discovered it has no overall magnetic field — no magnetism emanating from its core.

ocalhoun
Bluedoll wrote:

Quote:
no magnetism emanating from its core.


Ah, so that's what's wrong with it...

That is a problem for any terraforming effort... And one we certainly don't have a solution for yet. Fundamentally changing the core of a whole planet seems a rather daunting task... Perhaps huge generators could be built so that a planet-sized magnetic field could be artificially made?
I presume that could be done, though it would take scads of energy.
Hm... perhaps you could just inhabit a small portion of the planet, and focus on shielding just that area from radiation.

That's not the kind of thing you could ship over on a spacecraft though... They would have to be built on-site using local materials.
Bluedoll
ocalhoun wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:

Quote:
no magnetism emanating from its core.


Ah, so that's what's wrong with it...

That is a problem for any terraforming effort... And one we certainly don't have a solution for yet. Fundamentally changing the core of a whole planet seems a rather daunting task... Perhaps huge generators could be built so that a planet-sized magnetic field could be artificially made?
I presume that could be done, though it would take scads of energy.
Hm... perhaps you could just inhabit a small portion of the planet, and focus on shielding just that area from radiation.

That's not the kind of thing you could ship over on a spacecraft though... They would have to be built on-site using local materials.
I agree it is a complicated task and perhaps rests only in the imagination of science fiction though I've always appreciated that realm. Something tells me that as we learn and discover more we begin to see a relationship developing between many systems. The core affects the atmosphere which affects water and therefore life. Well, is not the reverse true?

Somehow I think the task of producing life on a dead planet involves a great deal of thought and preparation or it results in a failure. Maybe, if we do not consider a failure as the end result then we can keep plugging along trying different things until we reach a successful result. The question is how many planet starts will it take? Ask the universe. Laughing
therimalaya
If it will get possible to live in mars... Every body will go up(down) there and the whole earth will be mine... Ha ha ha I won't leave this earth... never
enilsoncba
The Arizona desert is the place more like Mars, scientists say. And American red on the ground we can play with more clarity, life would be like on the Red Planet.

Mars is very similar to Earth. It has 24-hour days, has four seasons of the year and, most importantly, research has shown that there is water.

Mars also has carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. These four elements are not only the basis of food and water, but of plastic, wood, paper, clothing, and the main fuel for rockets.

In a play, the streets of Mars would be capsules, with capacity for four people each, would form the first Martian community. Inside, have a room for each person, one bathroom, an exercise room, a laboratory, a space that can be the kitchen. Altogether, one hundred meters square.

In a land so big, with 144 million square kilometers, roughly about half the size of Earth, you need the car. And they have begun to be drawn. They are vehicles for Martian explore this new planet, they take vehicles for a new life.

Everything looks beautiful, but there is a list of problems. For each of them, scientists have a solution.
codersfriend
I thought some years ago NASA will be sending men on mars.. but it has not yet happened
Josso
codersfriend wrote:
I thought some years ago NASA will be sending men on mars.. but it has not yet happened


Nooooo last estimation I saw was like 2024 or something
Related topics
Ice Lake on Mars?
Fantasy football !!
What's your favourite genre of music?
Who All Believes In Evolution?
What do I do, I messed up !! I really LOVE HER!!
Aliens - Myth or reality?
Pro's and Con's of Being a Christian
how many of the four cardinal virtues do you practice?
Pop-punk, the worst thing to happen to music in loooong time
Yo mama so fat...
Bangalore,India Art of Living celebrates silver jubilee
ON LIVING
Sinning by thought
Scientists Propose One-Way Trip To Mars
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.