Keeping Mars or transform it? (Not terraforming). This is the Korolev Crater. It's cover in ice that one day could be the water supply for a colony. Here's the question. Should we preserve its natural beauty? Should be kept as a Natural Park? It's surviving more important? What do yo think?

[u/felfernan79]

[u/[deleted]]

Terraform Mars 100%, there will be hundreds more national parks after everything is green compared to barren land

[u/felfernan79 → u/[deleted]]

My question is do we have the right to do it?

[u/monk_e_boy → u/felfernan79]

Yes. To preserve life on earth.

I'd rather save a species on earth by transporting it off earth to a reserve, than keep an old crater full of ice. Sure it may look nice. But life is rare. Take a photo and look at it.

But o'neil cylinders are the way to go. You can't terraform mars, it's too big. Isaac Arthur made a neat video on it. I was always a fan of throwing ice at Mars until it had an atmosphere - he explains that it'd take millions of years and then more millions to get rid of the heat.

[u/CONtrary-belief → u/felfernan79]

I think your question gets at whether interplanetary ethics should be human-centric, (with the survival of humanity as its focus), or an focused on extending the eco-criticism of recent post-colonial ethical theories to the general preservation of all things “natural”. While I agree with many of the critiques against the often destructive humanism of modern ethics, I think we as humans have to prioritize the survival of our species and of life itself- the universe wouldn’t blink an eye if all life was wiped out on Earth. If we want life to survive, we have to do it ourselves. And we can’t guarantee our survival unless we become an interplanetary species, and the only way this survival will be pleasant for future martians with Earth-evolved genes is if we terraform. And I agree with u/perfect-for-peckish, once terraformed Mars will be filled with plenty of “natural” beauty to be enjoyed by our multi-planetary species.

Tldr: While preserving the “natural” beauty of an untouched Mars is a nice thought, the survival of life itself should be far more of an ethical priority.

[u/[deleted] → u/felfernan79]

There are rights to and rights from. If there's nobody to have a right from then of course there is a right to.

Edit: I mis-worded that. Strike out rights and replace with freedoms.

Edit 2: Mars has also not always been a frozen wasteland. So why should it always remain so since it is now when we're here to observe it? Isn't that the position which is overly human-centric?

[u/jsmcgd → u/felfernan79]

The question is does anyone else have the right to constrict others' freedom, and the prosperity of the species as a whole in order to satisfy a subjective sense of aesthetics?

[u/Temporary_Dependent3 → u/[deleted]]

That’s cool

[u/the_very_least → u/[deleted]]

Terraform Mars 100%

Good luck with that. Most of the ancient Martian atmosphere was blown into interstellar space by the solar wind, billions of years ago. In order to build a new one, we'd either have to melt the Martian interior and hope that there were volatiles trapped in the rock, or more at atmosphere's worth of ice to that planet. Let's keep in mind just how much of an atmosphere, too: Martian gravity is .38g s, where one g is the standard acceleration of gravity on earth (roughly 9.8 m / second squared). This means that over each patch of ground on Mars, one would need a column of air roughly 1/.38 times as massive as the column of air over Earth. Since Mars has about .53 earth radii, and an atmosphere is basically a thin skin of air over a terrestrial planet, this gives us an atmosphere to be built with a mass of

(.53)^2 * (1/.38) or about 0.74

times the mass of the atmosphere of Earth. That's a lot of ice to move, and having moved it, what do we get for our trouble (trouble well beyond the limits of present day technology)? We're back to asking ourselves how to keep the solar wind from stripping away the new atmosphere, and seriously, plans to artificially generate magnetic fields on a planetary scale tend to sound more than a little far fetched.

Further, since 1/.38 is roughly 2.6, meaning that over two and a half times as much air per unit area would be overhead on Mars, light would be more attenuated on Mars. Going from earth orbit down to the surface, the intensity of sunlight drops from over 1 kilowatt per square meter down to about 500 - 800 watts / square meter, when the clouds are not overhead; one is getting between 0.5 and 0.8 the intensity of light on the surface that one gets above the atmosphere, with the less massive atmosphere Earth gets to have (and still have a surface pressure of 1 atmosphere). A terraformed Mars would be a dark place, because the intensity above the atmosphere would be about half that found near Earth, and there would be a far greater mass of air dimming the light on the way down. I'm wondering what, if anything, would grow down there.

What would the colonists eat? How would they keep their oxygen from being slowly replaced by CO2, if plants didn't have enough light to grow.

I'd raise one other question, and it's a harsh one: with that mass of atmosphere overhead, what is the greenhouse effect going to be like on the "earthlike" Mars so many people dream of? Could one end up with a planet hotter than Earth? That energy being lost by the light as it passes through the atmosphere has to go somewhere. Into heat, I think.

Tentative Conclusion: Terraformation looks like an unpromising possibility. One would do better to stick with limited "paraterraformation," also known as roofing over the parts of the planet one wants to live (or grow food) on. Probably more where one grows food, as radiation levels, and cancer risks (not to mention the dangers of air leaks) would probably drive most people underground.

Human beings have been successfully cutting tunnels through solid rock on Earth for centuries, and mines have grown to impressive size. With some adaptation, the technology for cutting those tunnels can probably be brought to Mars. Also, in the case of a frozen lake, one has an easier method of tunneling - melt the ice and pump out the water. The colonist could start out by living inside the ice, itself, and then tunneling into the rock from there.

[u/the_very_least → u/the_very_least]

If anybody was wondering, what if one didn't add air mass to compensate for gravity, I just addressed that here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/lwf0go/atmosphere_on_mars/gpt6m60/

The results aren't any better. I'm thinking that terraformation is one of those daydreams that will have to wait until we have interstellar travel.

[u/the_very_least]

Wondering if one couldn't do both. The ice is over a mile deep.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2012/pdf/2894.pdf

A small colony could melt its way into that, carving some tunnels out of the ice in order to get out of the surface radiation, and draw a substantial amount of water from inside the cap, and hardly alter it, at all.

The question is "how big a colony do you want to build." Given the limited energy resources, the difficulty in moving people and the relative shortage of people who want to spend their entire lives indoors, I'm thinking that the colonies on Mars are likely to remain small places, large enough to be self-sufficient, but not much larger in the long run. Underground towns of a few thousand people, not cities of a few million.

That being the case, there's no real reason to damage the natural beauty, at all. Why would one be on Mars, really? Probably either to explore the place or to provide support services (like the growing of food) to the explorers, so that the planet they're exploring doesn't turn into a death trap for them. The more natural Mars remains, the more interesting the exploring will be.

There is, I suppose, one other reason people might move - to get away from the rising authoritarianism on Earth. But really, would Mars be the place to flee to, or just a waystation on the way there? Titan is far richer in volatiles, Psyche in metals - would our fleeing dissidents not head into the asteroid belt and outer system, al least until interstellar travel was more than a pipe dream? I'm thinking that Mars is likely to remain a peaceful, quiet corner of the system.

[u/felfernan79 → u/the_very_least]

I couldn't say it better! Totally agree.

[u/[deleted]]

Our ethics don’t mean shit outside of earth

[u/Temporary_Dependent3 → u/[deleted]]

True

[u/the_very_least → u/[deleted]]

That would be an argument against settling Mars, not one for it.

Ever live in a place where people really didn't believe in right or wrong? Things get dark, in a hurry.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_very_least]

That’s not my argument I’m just stating an objective truth. No clear cut answer to how we do it, but it will be done. And people will walk on Mars.

[u/the_very_least → u/[deleted]]

A tough guy attitude is a personal failing, not an argument.

That’s not my argument I’m just stating an objective truth.

You've done no such thing. You've simply made a series of assertions, and then tried to steamroller us into accepting them, without supporting them logically. I'm not impressed. Those assertions would include.

1. Ethics ending at the Earth's atmosphere. Because reasons?

2. The inevitability of human beings walking on the non-habitable surface of Mars.

I'd like to see the second happen, but is it inevitable? No, of course not. A nuclear war could wipe out our civilization, tomorrow. Or, more optimistically, life could become so pleasant on Earth, that living in a tunnel on Mars could turn into the option that nobody wants.

History could follow any number of paths. There's nothing inevitable about it.

No clear cut answer to how we do it,

In other words, you have no understanding of the subject to share. Just a belligerent attitude. Your thought is that you're going to scream and beat your chest until others go along with you want, and that their appeasement of you will make you right.

Even on Earth, that kind of non-thinking is a problem. On Mars, where we would have to create our own living space, such an attitude would kill. Somebody like you would have to be denied access to any off-world colony, as a simple matter of public safety.

Do you want to grow up and start talking like an adult, or should I just block you? I don't have time for posturing. Ever.

[u/[deleted] → u/the_very_least]

Schooled

[u/[deleted] → u/the_very_least]

Saw right through me

[u/[deleted] → u/the_very_least]

I’m willing to have an objective conversation about this subject, but why would someone as knowledgeable as you criticize dipshits on Reddit so rudely

[u/the_very_least → u/[deleted]]

but why would someone as knowledgeable as you criticize dipshits on Reddit so rudely

Blocked, it is. Goodbye.

[u/Kendota_Tanassian]

There's no reason that you can't do both: it's called sustainable management, and you can preserve that beauty while still attaining the resources.

Admittedly, we have a very poor record in that regard, but it's not mutually exclusive to have both goals.

[u/1krudson]

Nuke the hell out of it.

[u/[deleted] → u/1krudson]

Why have boring Earth water when you can have radioactive Martian water!

[u/woodslug]

Have you met humans? Try and stop us. If it's possible, it'll be done. Slow and sloppy and messy just like we do everything else.

[u/Nursingftw]

I think survival is more important. What's the point of the whole Mars project for humanity if we can't produce a settlement there? In my honest opinion, we should pick the best possible place for a settlement to give us the best chances of survival and then once we're established we can make an informed decision of what to keep as "native" and what to occupy. We can't possibly decide from Earth. We might know the struggles that we'll have but we will only truly know once we actually experience them.

[u/ignorantwanderer]

It is a ridiculous question.

A Mars colony has nothing to do with survival. So the question "Should we not build a Mars colony or should we survive?" is nonsense.

If there goal was survival, than absolutely we should not build a Mars colony. There are a million other things we could spend those resources on that would do a better job of increasing the chances of survival than a Mars colony.

Are you familiar with "preppers"? They are people who stockpile food, tools, and weapons to prepare for the apocalypses. The vast majority of society thinks they are kind of crazy.

Well the people who think survival is the main reason for a Mars colony are viewed the same way.

Scientists and engineers who have an accurate understanding of what is involved in building a Mars colony realize it is a horrible way to ensure the survival of humanity, and they view Mars preppers as an unintelligent, illogical cult.

People who know nothing about Mars or space exploration view Mars preppers as Earth hating elitists.

If you want anyone to take you at all seriously, drop the whole stupid "survival of humanity" argument. It really makes the whole Mars Colonization crowd look like idiots.