Can we turn Mars into another Earth?

[MikeSun5]

So a friend brought up the topic of terraforming Mars to make it hospitable for all manner of life. I'd never heard of the idea, but I dismissed it because I figured it'd simply be too cold. Turns out, there's quite a bit of research that's been done on it. Here's the wiki, and another article. My friend is as steadfast in believing that technology will become available someday as I am in believing it won't.

It seems to me that the process of importing oceans, creating a balanced atmosphere, and building 250km long mirrors to divert sunlight would be more absurd than "daunting."

I'm now wondering if this technology is something that will be possible some day, or is this just deluded science fiction fanboy nerd talk? (obviously I lean towards the latter.)
What say you, JREF?

 

[GreenLines]

As a personal feeling I think that we'll one day have the technology to turn Mars into a place that can be habitable without enclosed life supporting structures (biodomes, underground living, etc.), but another Earth, no. The difference in gravity is going to be a large obstacle to adjust to, and that alone will probably require a lot more work to deal with. Though with load bearing structures in mind it'll probably make it easier to maintain.

 

[arthwollipot]

I would have thought that the lower gravity would mean that Mars wouldn't be able to sustain a breathable atmosphere.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Echoing post 2, you can't fix it's gravity.

 

[Checkmite]

When you consider that one of the most important determining factors of a planet's atmosphere is its gravity (i.e., how thick of an atmosphere it can hold onto), I don't see how it could ever really work. Not in the Instant Recall sense. As the only way to increase something's gravity is to increase its mass, I don't see how the technology necessary could exist even in theory.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Total Recall

 

[Brian-M]

I'm now wondering if this technology is something that will be possible some day, or is this just deluded science fiction fanboy nerd talk? (obviously I lean towards the latter.)
What say you, JREF?

The latter. Terraforming Mars would require investing vast resources for many centuries -- or possibly millennia. For only a tiny fraction of the time and effort, you could build multiple underground cities on the moon, and have them fully inhabited long before Mars came even close to being habitable.

Politics may also play a role in this... think about the lack of funding NASA is currently receiving. We could have one of those hypothetical underground cities on the moon by now if we'd poured enough resourced into developing space-flight. Why haven't we? Is there ever going to be a time when governments are willing to throw away those kinds of resources? Is there ever going to be a time when a corporation is both willing and able to fund it?

It's hard to justify a program that diverts vast amounts of resources from the local economy for a project that won't produce any practical benefits for hundreds or thousands of years when the voters who put you in office want tax breaks, education and food on their tables.

Then there's the problem of the lack of a Magnetosphere. Any terraforming effort is unlikely to be permanent in the long-long term.

If we do one day colonize Mars, it's unlikely that we'll bother to terraform it first. Domed or underground cities are most likely.

(At least, that's my opinion.)

ETA: I'm not sure, but it might be able to hold a breathable atmosphere with it's 1/3 earth gravity. If so, (and I'm just guessing here) it'd probably be very thin, like at the top of a mountain even in the lowest canyons.

 

[Bikewer]

One of the technologies employed by science-fiction writers is bombardment of Mars by comets from the Oort cloud. Over time, this results in both water and atmosphere, though it's a bit splashy....
As I understand it, atmospheric losses due to the lower gravity is quite slow... So if one is capable of keeping up a relatively steady rain of comets onto the (hopefully!) uninhabited portion of the planet should make up for losses.
The capability would be rather far into the future....

 

[steve s]

Then there's the problem of the lack of a Magnetosphere. Any terraforming effort is unlikely to be permanent in the long-long term.

I think that's the single biggest problem. Even if you manage to melt all the ice and build up the atmosphere, the lack of a magnet field means you'll be bombarded by radiation.

Steve S

 

[Soapy Sam]

Looking at the NASA pics, I'd say someone already did.
The question is , can we fix it?

I think the answer to that is going to be established right here on Earth in the next fifty years or so.

 

[nescafe]

The lack of magnetic field would let solar weather do horrible nasty things to whatever atmosphere you managed to build up.

 

[portlandatheist]

I think that's the single biggest problem. Even if you manage to melt all the ice and build up the atmosphere, the lack of a magnet field means you'll be bombarded by radiation.

Steve S

Which would erode the atmosphere over time. (I'm sure you knew that, just clarifying)

If (and only if) it turns out that Mars is devoid of life, I think it would be a good idea to seed it with extremophiles and let evolution go on its merry way. It would be a cool but very slow and tedious science experiment.

 

[MRC_Hans]

We could never change Mars to be the same as Earth, but making it inhabitable for relatively unprotected humans might be achievable in some far future. There are smaller bodies than Mars in the solar system that have a substantial atmosphere, so gravity is not the only determining factor. A suitable percentage of green-house gasses in the artificial atmosphere could bring the temperature within an acceptable range.

However, it would be the most tremendous and long-term construction task in the history of Man.

If an extra solar, habitable planet can be located within a dozen LY, colonizing that may well be a more realistic undertaking.

Hans

 

[zerospeaks]

Using ionic propulsion we could send hundreds of large asteroids from the asteroid belt into mars. Not only increasing it's size and gravity, but reigniting it's geothermal activity.
This technique could also be used to increase the size of phobos (is that how you spell it? the mars moon) to keep the "engine" of liquid magma going.
Mars already has plenty of water, it just needs to melt and pool on the surface like we believe it once did.
Then it is a simple matter of seeding with life. The easiest step. In fact we have probably already done that with the rovers.... Oooops!
Why are we not rushing to do this?
Because it would never be completed in anyone's lifetime, therefore ... we procrastinate.

 

[portlandatheist]

Using ionic propulsion we could send hundreds of large asteroids from the asteroid belt into mars. Not only increasing it's size and gravity, but reigniting it's geothermal activity.
This technique could also be used to increase the size of phobos (is that how you spell it? the mars moon) to keep the "engine" of liquid magma going.
Mars already has plenty of water, it just needs to melt and pool on the surface like we believe it once did.
Then it is a simple matter of seeding with life. The easiest step. In fact we have probably already done that with the rovers.... Oooops!
Why are we not rushing to do this?
Because it would never be completed in anyone's lifetime, therefore ... we procrastinate.

They took great precautions to insure that we transferred no organisms on the rover, I presume they were successful but who knows? Your average organism would have little hope for survival but I think we have a few contenders here on Earth that may be able to make a life for themselves on Mars. I like the notion of diverting asteroids to Mars.

 

[arthwollipot]

We could never change Mars to be the same as Earth, but making it inhabitable for relatively unprotected humans might be achievable in some far future. There are smaller bodies than Mars in the solar system that have a substantial atmosphere, so gravity is not the only determining factor. A suitable percentage of green-house gasses in the artificial atmosphere could bring the temperature within an acceptable range.

What you say is true - but could we breathe such an atmosphere without equipment?

 

[zerospeaks]

I just had a thought....

If we significantly increased the size of mars would that not also screw up it's orbit?

They took great precautions to insure that we transferred no organisms on the rover, I presume they were successful but who knows?

Last I heard, it was decided that the organisms that would be capable of surviving the journey would also survive the "cleaning" of the rovers. Therefore, we probably seeded mars with life. Woops!

 

[Sherman Bay]

I just had a thought....

If we significantly increased the size of mars would that not also screw up it's orbit?

Why? A planet's orbit isn't determined by its size, but its velocity.

I can see it now...someone makes the calculations to divert a minor asteroid into Mars, but makes a slight mistake, say, using inches instead of meters, and the asteroid heads for Earth instead. Mark my words, heads (and a lot of other things) would roll for that.

 

[Roboramma]

Something else to take into consideration is future genetic engineering. Making mars suitable for human and other life need not mean making it all that similar to earth, nor even similar enough that current humans could live there.

Rather, it means making it inhabitable for some possible engineered human, and that, I think, while still a rather monumental task, is achievable.

There's also the question of just how perfect we need to get. Do we want a world in which people can walk around, breathing the air, or is it okay if they just don't need elaborate space-suits, even if they still need to carry some oxygen around with them?

If we can grow food on mars, do martian farms need to be as efficient as their earth based counterparts, or have we still managed to terraform the planet if we can grow enough food for our colonists to meet their needs?

I think that with genetic engineering of soil bacteria, crop plants, and the humans who eat them, along with some of the things mentioned in other posts, we likely can achieve this, though whether or not we ever will is another question.

 

[zerospeaks]

Why? A planet's orbit isn't determined by its size, but its velocity.

Silly me, I thought mass increased it's centripetal force.