A "far out" question, I know. Flint will undoubtedly scoff at the "impossibility" of such a possibility, but I don't care, I like thinking about these things.

I think we are pretty close to having the ability to bring Mars back to a state of "life as we know it", and see this as very likely in the not too distant future. Once we are certain there is no life already present, this seems like the next logical step.

Failure could be disastrous. Success might have many rewards, but might also present numerous difficulties. For starters, who would take "ownership" of the new Mars and it's resources? Would a single government or corporation claim it if they were the first to develop it, or could it be divided up?

Do you think this will happen, and if so, how soon?

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), May 31, 2000

Answers

No. I can't see it ever being worth the expense to even try. Curiosity will get us there but if you look at mans greatest exploratory and colonization efforts there was always a *dollar* or its socially beneficial equivalent at the bottom of the barrel.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 31, 2000.

But in the near future it might not be any more expensive than sending a small missile, loaded with a warhead filled with the right combination of catalystic ingredients.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), May 31, 2000.

Hawk,

Is there enough oxygen on Mars to facilitate revitalizing the planet?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), May 31, 2000.

I have'nt a clue if habitating Mars will happen or not... If it does I hope we have something better than pollution and war to export.

-- Will (righthere@home.now), May 31, 2000.

Flash,

I don't know the specifics, but I think the general idea is that we would create a cloud layer above the surface (perhaps CO2?) that would produce a greenhouse effect. This would eventually warm the planet, melt the ice caps, and produce vegetation that would produce oxygen.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 01, 2000.

There is a chapter on terraforming Mars in Robert Zubrin's book The Case for Mars. His plan starts by using orbital mirrors to slightly warm the polar carbon dioxide caps leading to a runaway greenhouse effect. Then there is some discussion of how to get water and then how to get oxygen into the air.

dandelion

-- dandelion (golden@pleurisy.plant), June 01, 2000.

I thought it would be neat to send up some cold-weather lichen or some facultative bugs that might have a chance of surviving just to try and seed the planet with *something*.

After seeing the *horrified* looks from the hard scientists who didn't want to wipe out any (potentially) existing native life, I learned that it wasn't such a hot idea after all :-(

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2000.

Nanotechnology is coming, perhaps even within the lifetime of some of us. Terraforming shouldn't be a problem for more advanced technology, but let's pray our wisdom improves faster than our technology. Terraforming through nanotechnology could be a weapon, too.

-- (food@for.thought), June 01, 2000.

I think the temptation is going to be too hard for us to resist, a chance to prove that we are God. We've done test-tube babies and cloning, so it seems like an entire planet will just be a matter of time.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 01, 2000.

Can we "seed" Mars with Andy Ray?

-- (ImSo@tired.com), June 01, 2000.

What about the spin needed to hold an atmosphere on Mars? With the difference in distance from the sun and revolutions around the sun being different also, we would not get an earth-like planet. Maybe these things could be compesated for in the future, or we could bio-engineer people to become aclimated to a Mars ecosystem.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 01, 2000.

The Martians aren't going to like this. Remember Mars Attacks?

Some of the remote viewers say that there really are humanoid Maritians, and that some of them are already on earth. Maybe they're terraforming Earth to suit their needs!

-- Lurker2 (lurker2@lots.to.lurk.for), June 01, 2000.

a chance to prove that we are God.

Playing god and being 'God' are two entirely different things.

We have enough trouble acting human let alone proving to be God. Think about it.

-- I believe in Him (Jesus is King@Kingdom.come), June 01, 2000.

Interesting post, interesting answers.

Seems to me that it might be commercially more prudent to mine Mars, or use the planet for some sort of industrial purpose. If we produce chemicals there and an automated refinery blows up, not too big of a deal. No plants to kill, no humans endangered.

Unless of course, more complicated life than bacteria is discovered. That would change the picture. The Moons of Mars offer some possibilities, too.

Instead of terraforming, we could perhaps move our heavy industry there, and concentrate on revitalizing this planet before it is too late.

Our moon has possibilities too, but that might be a little "too close to home" should something go wrong(nuclear pile blows; anyone remember "SPACE: 1999?").

Peace and Love,

Don

-- Donald Shimoda (enlighten@me.com), June 01, 2000.

It is probable there is water below the surface. A couple of billion years ago Mars and Earth were quite similar. During this new millennium we will need more space, minerals and a new frontier. I think it is doable....If Kirk and Spock could use Genesis to seed a planet then so can we.

-- John Carter (tarstarkas@barsoom.edu), June 01, 2000.

It is our Manifest Destiny to colonize Mars and to spread the Word. Inferior species should be put in zoos. There are no superior species. After Mars, there is the solar system, the galaxy, the Universe. Then we can rest and have a brewski.

-- (Revelation@Noon.com), June 01, 2000.

I enjoyed myself all the way through Robinson's Mars series (Red Mars, Blue Mars, and Green Mars). It sounded fairly plausible, given the assumption of water under the surface. Creating an atmosphere of breathable pressure and composition is the largest challenge.

And yes, we'll need to bring costs WAY down for numerous elements of the project. And that means biting the bullet and paying the astronomical startup and R&D expenses. Right now, we're too busy burning Renaissance masterpieces to cook tonight's supper to consider such an undertaking very seriously. Soon enough, I fear the time will come when we'll be sitting around wondering WHY we never bothered to develop the technology we'll so desperately be needing. And by then, saying I Told You So won't be very satisfying for anyone.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 2000.

Hawk:

Do you mean to ask "will we do it" or "will we try to do it"?

Flint is correct. To be successful in such an endeavor will require large investments in basic research and engineering. At present such funds are granted only on the basis of short term profit in both the public and private sectors.

Doesn't look too likely.

Have been ice climbing today on a glacier. Even at altitude the Iowa sun really beats down on one. Need a good nights rest before moving on.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

Shoot, it's been 30 years since we even went to the moon and in one year it will be 2001 Space Odyssey time. What would HAL say?

NASA has outlived itself. What was once a dynamic, prestigious, cutting edge enterprise is now a farty, bumbling bureaucracy that screws up too many missions and no longer has a political mandate.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 01, 2000.

Lars:

Sad but true. NASA has become one of those all-too-common government bureaucracies without a mission, that lives on through sheer inertia and a few vested interests. But this isn't NASA's fault, of course. It's sorry political leadership, leadership by opinion poll rather than by vision and opinion *shaping*. Our leaders now lead the nation the same way a figurehead leads a drifting ship.

I guess if we really want a space program, our best tactic is to pick a nominal competitor, slip them the equivalent of a sputnik, and then set out to whup their asses. And repeat as necessary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 01, 2000.

"Do you mean to ask "will we do it" or "will we try to do it"?"

Both.

I disagree that it would be expensive to attempt this. Keep in mind that the surface area of Mars is only about 1/15th of the surface area of Earth. Mars also has very strong windstorms, capable of circulating and spreading the cloud layer we create. A couple of smoke bombs containing the right ingredients could create the necessary greenhouse effect, I would venture to say less expensively than some of the recent robot missions. When the planet warms and water begins to flow, it would only be a matter of sending some forms of plant life that can survive harsh conditions until the atmosphere stabilizes.

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 01, 2000.

Flint and Lars:

My impression is different.

We saw a fundamental change occur during the 1980's. No more cost/benefit analysis. It became cost/immediate benefit analysis. These large and dreamy projects require a waste of money [waste being defined as spending money on a lot of things, many of which don't work].

As a people, we are in the money making business, not in the dreamweaving business. Our dreams no longer exceed our grasp. Our vision is limited to wealth accumulation. Until we change that we as a people we will remain earth bound. NASA is guided by the requirements presented to it by the people. If they exceeded them, they would be investigated by a congressional taskforce.

Best wishes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

Mars aint the kind of place to raise your kids ...in fact its cold as hell... Elton John

Right Elton. But maybe we go anyway, like your Rocketman. I think that something in our nature drives us want to explore. I also think that we should give our children dreams, the we we had dreams about sending a man to the moon. But this time, we need to have a plan beyond sending people there and then...nothing. A continuous stream of explorers...an outpost.

A long way to go, remember the "Biosphere". But it is time to start.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 01, 2000.

Yes we will engage in 'Genesis' type projects, but not in the near future (say 30 years). Not until we really master genetic manipulation.

'Genesis' for us would entail engineering new forms of life that can digest materials present on Mars and in turn produce the materials we want (as opposed to the 'instant life' method presented in the movie). There are forms of life on earth that exist deep in the ocean amongst active volcanic vents. They live in water that's literally hotter than boiling, under extreme pressure, and use SULFER as their primary source of food. Life can and does exist in some pretty harsh places. I figure we have maybe 15 years before we're able to cure all human diseases and another 15 before we get the whole 'God Thing' down pat (ie. creating new life forms). Oh! And don't rule out genetically modifing human beings so they'd be able live in other atmospheres. This stuff may have been fantasy at one time but not anymore. We KNOW it's technically possible to do these things, all we have to do now is figure out how...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.CON), June 02, 2000.

Damn TECH! I LIKE the way you think! (as opposed to some of the pessimists around here)

We're smart enough...

We're good enough...

And by golly, God likes us! :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), June 02, 2000.

Anyone remember the movie "Mars Needs Women?"

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), June 02, 2000.

I believe:

Who really is God? I believe there is an election on that matter at the moment. See:

Fildalgo

Visit and ye shall learn.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 02, 2000.

Tech 32,

Always enjoy you. Mastering the how doesn't answer the why. Care to take a shot?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 02, 2000.