1. Do you believe terraforming (turning into a landscape like Earth) other planets for human survival is possible?
Terraforming is the act of...making a planet more earth-like. If [we] were to terraform any planet of the Milky Way [Galaxy] with our technology, it would be a close neighbor, Mars. Mars has a history involving life. Water is buried as permafrost [in the] soil. Minerals and organic compounds are [also]present in the Martian atmosphere and soil. Even an asteroid that hit Earth in Antartica was a small chunk of Mars. In[side] the asteroid were pre- forms of bacteria that may have lived in Mars 3 billion years ago. Many scientists belive that Mars had life before we did, but all died when the super volcanoes did because there was nothing to warm the planet. Terraforming can possibly get Mars life again. Our first terraforming step is warming the planet. Easy, we're doing this right on our own planet. We can warm the planet by...using space mirrors to reflect more sunlight to the Martian landscape...once the ice caps melt, under ground water and CO2 reserves will burst out due to the rapid change of state causing an atmosphere to form with plentiful green house gases to warm the cold planet. Next we [would] need water. Permafrost will do the trick, all that will melt with the warmer atmosphere, filling up oceans and causing it to rain for years at a time until things settle. Now comes [the] hardest part, stopping UV rays. We need ozone or a magnetic field. We can possibly use two giant spinning magnets at the poles with an impressive energy source...or artificially make ozone using oxygen from water. Lastly we need oxygen, the easiest way is to plant trees, this may be a slow process but is will work. After releasing a simple ecosystem to the equator areas, we can establish a self-functioning colony, farming our own food and taking care of our selves with out help from Earth. All left is to let our bodies get used to the [low] gravity conditions. ~Environmentalist
Yes, I agree that these solutions could terraform Mars and allow it to become sustainable and be a friendly environment for humans. However, it is inevitable not to say how much money and work it would cost us. The entire world would have to put a lot of its effort into this hypothetical "Interational Terraforming Project". Also, transportation to and from Mars would be very hard. It takes around 260 days to get to Mars using the Hohmann Transfer Orbit, the most efficient way for interplanetary space travel (Astronomy Cafe). 260 days is about 1.6 years, which is quite a long time for transportation. Though some suggest it may take only 130 days with high-speed transfer orbits (Astronomy Cafe).
Below: Hohmann Transfer Orbit method for interplanetary travel from Earth to Mars (Astronomy Cafe). Click to enlarge.
Furthermore, Earth and Mars must coincide correctly in their orbit for this method to work, and the launch window only comes around once every 25 months (Universe Today). These conditions may really take a toll on those traveling to and from Mars while having heavy psychological effects. One solution, however, would be to employ machines and droids. But this would require a vast knowledge and control of interplanetary technology, something we probably will not have for a long time. ~Pomomarine
Sources:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/marstravel.jpg
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2811.html
http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/mars/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-to-mars/
...At our fastest rates, we can reach mars in [about six] months. This [is still] heavy for astronomers. So Michio Kaku proposed an idea of Artificial Gravity in The History Channel's "The Universe". The method [is] that if you [spin] your space ship...at a fast speed, the center of the space ship will achieve gravity due to the great amount of [a central gravity-like] force. If this can be some how achieved, travel to Mars will be significantly less stressful. The only problem is that people living on Mars will have to be completely self sufficient [due] to the 6-month [lack] of radio signals (our only known way of communication today [through space]). -Environmentalist
I think [terraforming] might work, but wouldn't Mars eventually freeze again? Also you would need to find people willing to terraform Mars, people who know how to farm and people who are willing to spend years doing something that might fail. ~ZobyBlueberry
NASA, and one other Mars program are already building equipment to make colonies. Terraforming sounds too "science fiction" to NASA, which they avoid...for the Freezing, the atmosphere will be thicker, if it does get colder "we just pump CO2 into the air". -Environmentalist
Well, Mars doesn't have a magnetic field. What would that mean? That would mean all gases on Mars will be stripped away by the solar winds, so we would have to pump a lot greenhouse gases into its atmosphere. I think that making us more able to inhabit harsh conditions is easier than making harsh conditions inhabitable [to] us. ~Project Z
I think the Michio Kaku spinning space ship idea is a bit unrealistic. It would require a great deal of planning to produce a space travel ship like that and have it be realistically powered and operated...[However,] if more innovative technologies in this field arise in the future, they may give rise to solutions similar to that of Michio Kaku's to cope with [some of] the stress and time taken on the people participating in the project.
Also, I agree with ZobyBlueberry. To recruit people for this project would be very hard. First, few people would want to sacrifice so much time from their lives to work on such a large-scale project. People have a natural desire to stay at home where there lifestyle is stable and not subject to fate. Also, as I said earlier, the psychological effects of space travel and such labor as terraforming Mars have an immense impact on people. Another fact we cannot change is that humans were made to live on Earth.
This leads [me to Project Z's] argument that making us more able to inhabit harsh conditions is easier than making harsh conditions inhabitable for us. People cannot inhabit "harsh conditions" that are unrealistic to human life. For example, we could not decide that we wished to live in the ocean and simply begin "jumping in" and expect evolution. It would be required of us to set up underwater stations for living. (Please do not deviate from the topic and discuss underwater living...I'm just using an example.) Terraforming Mars is similar. We would have to make it Earth-like for us to inhabit it.
However, making harsh conditions inhabitable to us also has its problems as we can clearly see from our discussion. ~Pomomarine
I think that for the human race to prosper, we must terraform and prosper. If we want to survive, we must move beyond Earth. Lets say an asteroid strikes Earth and kills the majority if all humans, we will never have a chance to magically become what we once were and keep exploring to stars. To keep us alive, we must live some where else and so far Mars is the best candidate. ~Environmentalist
About my argument, we can genetically change humans physical appearance easily. This idea was mentioned in Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking. he stated that we would change our cells so that we can live in extreme harsh conditions. The only problem is the people that are mutated won't be going back to "normal" conditions anytime soon. The other problem is for non-mutated to mate with mutated, that would create problems for their descendants. ~Project Z
Interesting, [but] I do not actually agree with...Stephen Hawkings findings...Mutating us I am against because we are humans created by God and changing Gods creation...would not be a human thing to do. It may pose countless [psychological] problems and new bacteria and sicknesses can attack our cells that may have been immune before. Also it requires doing surgery that may possibly kill you , a person will have to risk it as well as the technology to do this being ahead of our time. ~Environmentalist
I believe that all these views may be controversial. To say that we must move beyond the Earth in order to survive may be an overly charged statement. Though having a "back-up" planet is a very good idea if efficiently accomplishable, I would not consider it an absolute necessity for preservation of the human race. In my opinion, I believe the statement "To keep us alive, we must live some where else [other than Earth]" would be a bit over-stretched.
More so, I agree with Environmentalist in disagreeing with Stephen Hawkings (via Sean). I think that first, it would considered immoral for us to alter our own bodies for uses stated by the aforementioned author either through surgery or molecular means. Also, this is impossible as humans are incapable of modifying physical appearance to the degree of altering form and function. It is strictly impossible for humans to grow wings or gills, for example.
On the correct subject of Terraforming Mars, however, I have no objection except for those I have already put forth. Those include the problems work force, resources, money, health, etc. along with a possible complete destruction of the global economy due to the vast amount of money and resources needed for an interplanetary terraforming project. ~Pomomarine
I believe that we can change our bodies but not in such a way that we grow things like wings. In fact even today we can extend life forms life span (Mentioned by Michio Kaku). This is believed [to be] the first step to changing bodies. The next step would be increasing the "strength" of our natural heat generating cells. This would help us deal with colder conditions. One day in the far future we may be able to increase the efficiency of all our cells so we may consume less but do more. Then even further into the future we may be able to make our cells do the same thing but use different fuel (instead of oxygen use other gases). Even if the temperature and toxic gas levels were way to extreme we could change what our bodies are made of. For example we are made of mostly carbon but carbon hardens easily in -100 degrees. But we don't have to be made of carbon, Stephen Hawking stated that carbon could be replaced by silicon. But changing what our bodies are made of is very unrealistic, the change form carbon to silicon is probably very dangerous, but one day after colonizing so many planets it is possible that we find another element or compound that could replace carbon in our bodies that would also be non toxic.
About Michio Kaku's theory. I think that his logic is correct. Lets put it in simpler terms. Imagine a top that is spinning. The faster it goes the more stable it is. When it is spinning everything around the middle will very slightly "fold" towards the center. Imagine a circular paper and you spin it at over 1000 RPM. Then you will see that everything but the center is slightly lifted off the ground. So now lets imagine the spaceship, is spinning at about 1,000,000,000 RPM. Shouldn't the same effect that occurred on the spinning top and paper occur here? But i think that the ship should be circular or it might be even more stressful for some...
Interesting views. I suppose what you say may be possible to a certain extent, but I doubt changing the human form from carbon-based to silicon (or any other element for that matter) would be plausible. For one thing, as you noted, it is extremely dangerous and we don't even have means close to accomplishing such a task right now. Also, the entire human form and function would be disrupted. Such a thing would be like 'reinventing the human'. The human body works as a whole, you can't change one thing and not have it affect all other aspects.
As for the Michio Kaku spinning space ship idea, I believe that it is theoretically possible as well as physically correct. However, the means for doing so are questionable. First, where would one get the motor to spin the ship at such a fast rate and for so long? Also, how would one power the motor and get enough fuel for it? Wouldn't this also mean that everything inside would be spinning too unless you put a stationary platform inside? All these questions challenge the idea. Though possible, plausibility is questionable. ~Pomomarine
Accepting harsh habitat will not be very easy. You cannot pluck a person up and expect them to live in a different place with harsh climate. Plus the green house gases could be very hard to balance. You would need enough so that it doesn't refreeze and little enough so that mars doesn't have so serious global warming that could potentially ruin plans. ~ZobyBlueberry
~Environmentalist
No comments:
Post a Comment