About 10 years ago, NASA made this amazing IMAX movie about terraforming Mars that was shown at NASA's Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.
In 3 story tall technicolor, it was impressive. I've been trying to find a link for that movie and can't seem to. Hrm... it MAY have been this one...:
http://www.thespaceshop.com/imdvddeinsp.html(we lived close to Kennedy Space Center, so we saw all the movies)
Anyway, it outlined all the methods on the table now for terraforming Mars over a period of 1000 years. The most simple/feasible one was shooting large nuclear fusion bombs into Mars core, which should melt the ice and release trapped CO2 creating an 'atmosphere' from the greenhouse effect. If Mars has indigenous life now, that would mean a change of plans, I'd guess.
NASA's movie made it not only look possible, the planning is in the works right now, with feasibility studies being done by the rovers. Here's a NASA site about it:
http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfmAccording to the original movie, the biggest problem would be the lack of Nitrogen in Mars atmosphere... not CO2 or Oxygen. Without the nitrogen, the atmosphere would be too combustible.
The article above, more updated since the movie seems to consider other methods now (seeding the surface with self reproducing plants or microbes).
Here's another NASA paper on the subject:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htmQUOTE
Many people can accept the possibility of a permanently staffed base on Mars, or even the establishment of large settlements. However the prospect of drastically changing the planet's temperature and atmosphere towards more earthlike conditions, or "terraforming" seems to most people to be either sheer fantasy or at best a technological challenge for the far distant future.
But is this pessimistic point of view correct? Despite the fact that Mars today is a cold, dry, and probably lifeless planet, it has all the elements required to support life: water carbon and oxygen (as carbon dioxide), and nitrogen. The physical aspects of Mars, its gravity, rotation rate and axial tilt are close enough to those of Earth to be acceptable and it is not too far from the Sun to be made habitable.
In fact computational studies utilizing climate models suggest that it could be possible to make Mars habitable again with foreseeable technology. The essence of the situation is that while Mars' CO2 atmosphere has only about 1% the pressure of the Earth's at sea level, it is believed that there are reserves of CO2 frozen in the south polar cap and adsorbed within the soil sufficient to thicken the atmosphere to the point where its pressure would be about 30% that of Earth. The way to get this gas to emerge is to heat the planet, and in fact, the warming and cooling of Mars that occurs each Martian year as the planet cycles between its nearest and furthest positions from the Sun in its slightly elliptical orbit cause the atmospheric pressure on Mars to vary by plus or minus 25% compared to its average value on a seasonal basis.
We can not, of course, move Mars to a warmer orbit. However we do know another way to heat a planet, through an artificially induced greenhouse effect that traps the Sun's heat within the atmosphere. Such an atmospheric greenhouse could be created on Mars in at least three different ways. One way would be to set up factories on Mars to produce very powerful artificial greenhouse gasses such as halocarbons ("CFC's") and release them into the atmosphere. Another way would be to use orbital mirrors or other large scale power sources to warm selected areas of the planet, such as the south polar cap, to release large reservoirs of the native greenhouse gas, CO2, which may be trapped their in frozen or adsorbed form. Finally natural greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2 (but much less so than halocarbons) such as ammonia or methane could be imported to Mars in large quantities if asteroidal objects rich with such volatiles in frozen form should prove to exist in the outer solar system.
Each of these methods of planetary warming would be enhanced by large amounts of CO2 from polar cap and the soil that would be released as a result of the induced temperature rise. This CO2 would add massively to the greenhouse effect being created directly, speeding and multiplying the warming process.
The Mars atmosphere/regolith greenhouse effect system is thus one with a built-in positive feedback. The warmer it gets, the thicker the atmosphere becomes; and the thicker the atmosphere becomes the warmer it gets. A method of modeling this system and the results of calculations based upon it are given in the sections below.
For those who love equations:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Many people can accept the possibility of a permanently staffed base on Mars, or even the establishment of large settlements. However the prospect of drastically changing the planet's temperature and atmosphere towards more earthlike conditions, or "terraforming" seems to most people to be either sheer fantasy or at best a technological challenge for the far distant future.
But is this pessimistic point of view correct? Despite the fact that Mars today is a cold, dry, and probably lifeless planet, it has all the elements required to support life: water carbon and oxygen (as carbon dioxide), and nitrogen. The physical aspects of Mars, its gravity, rotation rate and axial tilt are close enough to those of Earth to be acceptable and it is not too far from the Sun to be made habitable.
In fact computational studies utilizing climate models suggest that it could be possible to make Mars habitable again with foreseeable technology. The essence of the situation is that while Mars' CO2 atmosphere has only about 1% the pressure of the Earth's at sea level, it is believed that there are reserves of CO2 frozen in the south polar cap and adsorbed within the soil sufficient to thicken the atmosphere to the point where its pressure would be about 30% that of Earth. The way to get this gas to emerge is to heat the planet, and in fact, the warming and cooling of Mars that occurs each Martian year as the planet cycles between its nearest and furthest positions from the Sun in its slightly elliptical orbit cause the atmospheric pressure on Mars to vary by plus or minus 25% compared to its average value on a seasonal basis.
We can not, of course, move Mars to a warmer orbit. However we do know another way to heat a planet, through an artificially induced greenhouse effect that traps the Sun's heat within the atmosphere. Such an atmospheric greenhouse could be created on Mars in at least three different ways. One way would be to set up factories on Mars to produce very powerful artificial greenhouse gasses such as halocarbons ("CFC's") and release them into the atmosphere. Another way would be to use orbital mirrors or other large scale power sources to warm selected areas of the planet, such as the south polar cap, to release large reservoirs of the native greenhouse gas, CO2, which may be trapped their in frozen or adsorbed form. Finally natural greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2 (but much less so than halocarbons) such as ammonia or methane could be imported to Mars in large quantities if asteroidal objects rich with such volatiles in frozen form should prove to exist in the outer solar system.
Each of these methods of planetary warming would be enhanced by large amounts of CO2 from polar cap and the soil that would be released as a result of the induced temperature rise. This CO2 would add massively to the greenhouse effect being created directly, speeding and multiplying the warming process.
The Mars atmosphere/regolith greenhouse effect system is thus one with a built-in positive feedback. The warmer it gets, the thicker the atmosphere becomes; and the thicker the atmosphere becomes the warmer it gets. A method of modeling this system and the results of calculations based upon it are given in the sections below. |
For those who love equations:
An equation for estimating the mean temperature on the surface of Mars as a function of the CO2 atmospheric pressure and the solar constant is given by McKay and Davis [1] as:
Tmean = S^0.25xTBB + 20(1+S)P^0.5 (Eq.1)
where Tmean is the mean planetary temperature in kelvins, S is the solar constant where the present day Sun=1, TBB, the black body temperature of Mars at present = 213.5 K, and P is given in bar.
Since the atmosphere is an effective means of heat transport from the equator to the pole,we propose (as an improvement over equation (1) in reference [2]:
Tpole = Tmean - DT/(1 + 5P) (Eq. 2)
where DT is what the temperature difference between the mean value and the pole would be in the absence of an atmosphere (about 75 K for S=1).
For purposes of this analysis it is further assumed based upon a rough approximation to observed data that :
Tmax = Tequator = 1.1Tmean (Eq. 3)
and that the global temperature distribution is given by:
T(q) = Tmax - (Tmax-Tpole)sin^1.5q (Eq.4)
where q is the latitude (north or south).
Equations (1) through (4) given the temperature on Mars as a function of CO2 pressure. However, as mentioned above, the CO2 pressure on Mars is itself a function of the temperature. There are three reservoirs of CO2 on Mars, the atmosphere, the dry ice in the polar caps, and gas adsorbed in the soil. the interaction of the polar cap reservoirs with the atmosphere is well understood and is given simply by the relationship between the vapor pressure of CO2 and the temperature at the poles. This is given by the vapor pressure curve for CO2, which is approximated by:
P = 1.23 x 10^7{exp(-3168/Tpole)} (Eq. 5)
So long as there is CO2 in both the atmosphere and the cap, equation (5) gives an exact answer to what the CO2 atmospheric pressure will be as a function of polar temperature. However if the polar temperature should rise to a point where the vapor pressure is much greater than that which can be produced by the mass in the cap reservoir (between 50 and 150 mb) then the cap will disappear and the atmosphere will be regulated by the soil reservoir.
The relationship between the soil reservoir, the atmosphere and the temperature is not known with precision. an educated guess is given in parametric form in reference 1 as:
P = {CMaexp(T/Td)}1/g (6)
where Ma is the amount of gas adsorbed in bar, g=0.275, C is a normalization constant set so that with chosen values of the other variables equation (6) will reflect known Martian conditions, and Td is the characteristic energy required for release of gas from the soil. Equation (6) is essentially a variation on Van Hofft's law for the change in chemical equilibrium with temperature, and so there is fair confidence that its general form is correct. However the value of Td is unknown and probably will remain so until after human exploration of Mars. In reference [2] McKay et al varied parametrically Td from 10 to 60 K and produced curves using equation (6) with T set equal to either Tpole or Tmean. In this paper we choose Td=15 to 40 K (a reasonable subset of the spectrum slightly on the optimistic side; the lower the value of Td the easier things are for prospective terraformers.) Because equation (6) is so strongly temperature dependent, however, we do not simply set T to the extreme values of Tmean or Tpole and solve equation (6) to get a global "soil pressure" however, as was done in reference [2]. Rather we use the global temperature distribution given by equation (4) to integrate equation (6) over the surface of the planet. This gives a more accurate quasi 2-Dimensional view of the atmosphere/regolith equilibrium problem in which most of the adsorbed CO2 is distributed to the planet's colder regions. In this model, regional (in the sense of latitude) temperature changes, especially in the near-polar regions, can have as important a bearing on the atmosphere/regolith interaction as changes in the planet's mean temperature.
Why not Venus? NASA seems to think Mars would be a much easier and thus faster terraforming possibility.
Guest_Mark
30th August 2006 - 01:22 AM
I like the Russian idea of building a city floating above the clouds on Venus. I've heard that at 32 miles above the surface the temperature and pressure is the same as earth. At certain latitudes, the winds would blow the city around the planet so the day-length wouldn't be too unlike earth.
We have very little knowledge of what technology will be like 100 years from now. Technological advancement is accelerating. It would be like Benjamin Franklin foreseeing the technologies that have brought us the Internet, stealth fighters with VR cockpits, the h-bomb, and a man on the moon.
Within this century we may develop small self-replicating microscopic robots that could suck every bit of sulfur and carbon out of the atmosphere of Venus in a few hours. We may even be able to transfer our consciousness to, or transform our bodies to be perfectly comfortable on the surface of Venus or Mars.
Marty
21st September 2006 - 05:51 PM
555Joshua
there aren't active volcanoes on venus's surface. I was watching something on discovery about it yesterday. the huge lava flows come from the fact that venus doesn't have tectonic plates, it's just one big shell of rock. once in a long time the pressure builds up and the shell cracks, causing mass flooding of the planet with molten rock.
SKMR
23rd September 2006 - 06:11 PM
Hi! I'm doing a report on Venus. Can anyone help me?
PhilP
3rd October 2006 - 07:57 AM
Might be nice to visit, but I don't know about living there. I mean, what between the Sun rising in the West, and it's day longer than it's year? I ask you, really!
Brad Guth
26th January 2007 - 01:47 PM
There's not all that much required for terraforming such a thriving newish planet like Venus, especially when it's already terraformed enough as is, and potentially suitable as is for intelligent human life, that is if you only had so much a half a village idiot's brain worth of common sense.
With such surplus energy; what's not possible?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
27th January 2007 - 06:52 AM
Why bother to terraform when it's good to go as is?
I and others will gladly say this one again; Venus is no GREENHOUSE driven planet by way of any known science that includes the regular laws of physics and of planetology that's simply newish compared to that of Earth, and otherwise via the replicated science of others that more than proves the Venusian environment has been getting contributed to and unavoidably roasted from the inside out, along with whatever solar influx that's simply getting a free ride and thereby adding insult to that otherwise geothermally traumatised environment.
-
Brad Guth
kaneda
28th January 2007 - 10:38 AM
Brad Guth. Venus has an atmosphere of mainly CO2 along with acids etc that is ninety times as dense as Earth's atmosphere and a surface temperature of 400.C . You may be able to live on Venus but Earth people cannot. To say otherwise is to expose rank stupidity.
Robc025
31st January 2007 - 03:42 AM
We cannot terraform mars in any way, the gravity is too low to hold an atmosphere, the axis changes too often.
Venus is like hell. you don't have to be a scientist to know this. all the terraforming ideas are just pipe dreams.
Setting up temporary outposts on Mars is the only possibility.
Guest_Darren
5th March 2007 - 10:01 PM
To learn to run you first must learn to walk. I think we should just concentrate on fixing our own planet first. To create life elsewhere on one of the nearby clusters of rocks and gases in our solar sytem we must first make sure there is still life on the one planet that bares life circling our sun. Earth
RickyTy
24th March 2007 - 08:39 AM
QUOTE (nautilus+Jan 23 2006, 04:14 PM)
Heck, we can't even figure out how to fix our own planet, much less one that's not capable of supporting life to begin with. Start with what we got!
AMEN!!!
kaneda
24th March 2007 - 02:48 PM
Brad Guth. I have some bad news for you. Insults you learned from your father in his trailer are not proof. All you have done is show that you have no right to belong to this or any other forum.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.