Terraforming

[db44]

Time for a curveball for this forum.

In F&R, we've been discussing the universe, the galaxy, and the solar system. In talking about Mars, I mentioned a book series I once read called the Red Mars series, which deals with, in part, the political issues of colonizing our neighboring planet.

So I want people here to think out of the box for a second.

If we ever get there technologically-wise (and I honestly don't think we are necessarily that far awy), should we terraform Mars and make it capable of supporting humankind? What are the environmental aspect: As a natural wonder in a way, should it be preserved as is?

What about life that may already be there, as single cell or simple creatures? Would we be disrupting evolution of these creatures if we were to just suddenly build on top of them?

Humor me, please... ;)

[tiger_rascal]

Im not so sure we should send humans to Mars, or any other planet for that matter. Maybe the moon to set up a base for astronomy and other sciences. But Im not so sure about Mars.

The reason why is because Im not so sure the money would be well spent. We have humans on planet earth that could use that money to further progress a better life for all. I also dont want to see any humans get stuck in space or have some kind of disaster and have humans stuck in space or stuck on Mars and worst of all, death.

Other than those objections, I think it would be highly fascinating to further explore our solar system.

If we could get a large group of millionaires and billionaires to finance such a project, I say go for it. It would be interesting to have some hands on experiments, rather than robots. But robotics are not a bad choice either, they keep getting better and maybe another robotic mission should come first.

Thats just my opinion.

Vote Hillary.

[Java]

Terraforming Mars I don't think will ever be successful, for one reason the planet has very little in the way of any kind of geomagnetic field around it to deflect incoming solar wind particles and thus the radiation levels near the surface will still remain much too high for life to be sustained (even to a few meters deep), besides the fact the gravity there can't hold down but just so much atmosphere as well... and water? The place would still be like a desert with water in very short supply! Also if anyone is thinking of building greenhouses there, the sun is farther away and thus less bright... besides how are they going to keep the dust off them too? And costs? ...we have waaay more vital things to be using the money for here on our home planet. Maybe if Earth's population was under control and at sustainable levels both for the Earth environment as well as for space for people to spread out into without needing to be stacked up into highrise boxes for homes... etc, etc, etc.

I feeling like I'm beginning to drone so I'll stop for now.

[db44]

It has been estimated though that the Earth can only support so much human life at one time, and if I'm not mistaken, we are getting pretty close to the estimated threshold. What happens if that turns out to be true? What do we do then?

[James Dean]

The enviroment itself needs to be considered, my knowledge from astronomy and Mars (which isn't much) is the seasons, length of days/nights, and the weather is complex so there's that to consider.

If we do get to that point, who will have first dibs? What do countries claims, a crater, a rock or a volcano? I'm being half-serious here. But there would be a mini-war going on planet Earth on who gets what and what goes where. We can't seem to co-exist here either.

Thirdly, funding and research would be important to see what really is there. It would take that in order for us to see if anyone can inhabit. If so, who?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Who? Just like always, whoever has the most muscle. :)