Down and Out on Mars and Venus

[Kannap]

Water. It needs tons of water. Make it into space Venice. It's going to be great.

What if we take all of Earth's water and put it on Mars?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Water ice melting should be controlled (needed: lots of energy). See, Mars's southern hemisphere is a gigantic impact crater (the largest in the entire Solar System by far). In other words, terrain there is at a lower height than the northern hemisphere, that is, a perfect place to flood to get an ocean while keeping the northern hemisphere above sea level (if I remember correctly, Mars has enough water to flood the planet to a few meters deep, but we would rather make an ocean and leave some continents for us to live in!).

My bad, it's actually the northern pole, but point still stands. We can easily flood the areas painted blue and keep the red ones above sea level.

You and I have a conflict of interest though. I was for crashing comets and asteroids into Mars, to create an atmosphere.

But since you told me there is so much water (and CO2) already on Mars, I want that for atmosphere. It may not be enough for my purposes but it's there already and just needs melting. That's a much lower energy cost than flying out to a comet and nuking it.

Vivolkha the Conservationist
Nobel Hobos 2 the Industrialist

Surely not

[North German Realm]

Terraforming Mars -if it's actually possible- on a level that would make the entire planet habitable for humans is probably centuries away from being anything more than just theoretical. Colonization of Mars is not that far away, though it's still too costly for it to be done on a national level and through tax and budget. You don't need the planet to be habitable to live there, you can terraform it after building permanent settlements, but that in itself is not likely anytime soon.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Water. It needs tons of water. Make it into space Venice. It's going to be great.

What if we take all of Earth's water and put it on Mars?

Sure why not. Screw Manhome, it's lame.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Terraforming Mars -if it's actually possible- on a level that would make the entire planet habitable for humans is probably centuries away from being anything more than just theoretical. Colonization of Mars is not that far away, though it's still too costly for it to be done on a national level and through tax and budget. You don't need the planet to be habitable to live there, you can terraform it after building permanent settlements, but that in itself is not likely anytime soon.

Massive space ships, deploying nukes big enough to obliterate whole continents, asteroids the size of New Zealand hurtling through space on perilous orbits, little Mars taking hit after hit for its own good, and you don't even care.

You'd rather have three scientists in a gold leaf tent. Bah.

[Vivolkha]

My bad, it's actually the northern pole, but point still stands. We can easily flood the areas painted blue and keep the red ones above sea level.

You and I have a conflict of interest though. I was for crashing comets and asteroids into Mars, to create an atmosphere.

But since you told me there is so much water (and CO2) already on Mars, I want that for atmosphere. It may not be enough for my purposes but it's there already and just needs melting. That's a much lower energy cost than flying out to a comet and nuking it.

Vivolkha the Conservationist
Nobel Hobos 2 the Industrialist

Surely not

I wanted CO2 for the atmosphere and water for the oceans.

Water. It needs tons of water. Make it into space Venice. It's going to be great.

What if we take all of Earth's water and put it on Mars?

Answer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/

[Sundiata]

I imagine that I'll have a lot of descendants someday. Catholic families tend to be rather large.

Every baby is a blessing.

[Heloin]

What if we take all of Earth's water and put it on Mars?

Answer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/

Like with everything, die Nederlandse Nuwe Wêreldorde.

[Cekoviu]

I won't have great-great-grandchildren because I can't have kids and don't want to adopt

Checkmate, atheists

[Page]

If we have the technology and resources to terraform Mars, then we have the technology and resources to make life on Earth sustainable. There is really no reason for humans to attempt to create permanent settlements on Mars or the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond the minimum required for economic exploration of extraterrestrial bodies. Maybe a few people live and work on Mars to harvest resources but the idea of colonies where regular people live their lives is rather absurd. We don't need kids going to school on Mars. Even if it becomes doable to sustain a colony, it doesn't mean we should. Extraterrestrial bodies should be treated like Antarctica - a place for research, not for a whole society.

[Heloin]

If we have the technology and resources to terraform Mars, then we have the technology and resources to make life on Earth sustainable. There is really no reason for humans to attempt to create permanent settlements on Mars or the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond the minimum required for economic exploration of extraterrestrial bodies. Maybe a few people live and work on Mars to harvest resources but the idea of colonies where regular people live their lives is rather absurd. We don't need kids going to school on Mars. Even if it becomes doable to sustain a colony, it doesn't mean we should. Extraterrestrial bodies should be treated like Antarctica - a place for research, not for a whole society.

Why not make both sustainable? Why shot ourselves in the foot and say we must live on Earth or fuck it over to live on Mars?

[The East Marches II]

If we have the technology and resources to terraform Mars, then we have the technology and resources to make life on Earth sustainable. There is really no reason for humans to attempt to create permanent settlements on Mars or the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond the minimum required for economic exploration of extraterrestrial bodies. Maybe a few people live and work on Mars to harvest resources but the idea of colonies where regular people live their lives is rather absurd. We don't need kids going to school on Mars. Even if it becomes doable to sustain a colony, it doesn't mean we should. Extraterrestrial bodies should be treated like Antarctica - a place for research, not for a whole society.

Why shouldn't we colonize it? The reason is extra land and the ability to create something of your own. Why limit those who want to go to the frontier?

[Stellar Colonies]

Water. It needs tons of water. Make it into space Venice. It's going to be great.

What if we take all of Earth's water and put it on Mars?

Ew, too much plastic.

[Page]

If we have the technology and resources to terraform Mars, then we have the technology and resources to make life on Earth sustainable. There is really no reason for humans to attempt to create permanent settlements on Mars or the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond the minimum required for economic exploration of extraterrestrial bodies. Maybe a few people live and work on Mars to harvest resources but the idea of colonies where regular people live their lives is rather absurd. We don't need kids going to school on Mars. Even if it becomes doable to sustain a colony, it doesn't mean we should. Extraterrestrial bodies should be treated like Antarctica - a place for research, not for a whole society.

Why shouldn't we colonize it? The reason is extra land and the ability to create something of your own. Why limit those who want to go to the frontier?

If someone wants to go live on Mars, they should be free to do so. I just don't see the point of any habitation there that isn't economically productive.

And I don't think colonization of space will be anything like settlers going out West. People back then could take some tools and livestock and build a ranch from scratch. People on Mars will be entirely dependent on the governments (or capitalists) of Earth. Colonists wouldn't have any real freedom when Earth can cut off the things required for life support if they don't obey and pay.

[The East Marches II]

Why shouldn't we colonize it? The reason is extra land and the ability to create something of your own. Why limit those who want to go to the frontier?

If someone wants to go live on Mars, they should be free to do so. I just don't see the point of any habitation there that isn't economically productive.

How drearily capitalist of you

[Page]

If someone wants to go live on Mars, they should be free to do so. I just don't see the point of any habitation there that isn't economically productive.

How drearily capitalist of you

That doesn't make me a capitalist. In fact, I would prefer if workers on Mars were organized into syndicates and owned their own enterprise. No bosses need to be involved.

[Heloin]

:?:

Why shouldn't we colonize it? The reason is extra land and the ability to create something of your own. Why limit those who want to go to the frontier?

If someone wants to go live on Mars, they should be free to do so. I just don't see the point of any habitation there that isn't economically productive.

And I don't think colonization of space will be anything like settlers going out West. People back then could take some tools and livestock and build a ranch from scratch. People on Mars will be entirely dependent on the governments (or capitalists) of Earth. Colonists wouldn't have any real freedom when Earth can cut off the things required for life support if they don't obey and pay.

There wouldn't be a genocide of Native people's and they'd be just as dependent as the early colonials.

[Eotenses]

There are perchlorates in the Martian soil that are toxic to most plants, animals, and even bacterial life-and also can be a very important source of oxygen in the future. Additionally many plants can survive and extract these perchlorates-however becoming infected in the process. There are also bacteria that can survive off of perchlorates, but I personally do not welcome the idea of having a handful of highly-evolved terran bacteria molding mars over.

In short, the soil is poisonous to most life and poses a threat to permanent habitation of the planet and terraforming efforts.

[Kowani]

:?:

If someone wants to go live on Mars, they should be free to do so. I just don't see the point of any habitation there that isn't economically productive.

And I don't think colonization of space will be anything like settlers going out West. People back then could take some tools and livestock and build a ranch from scratch. People on Mars will be entirely dependent on the governments (or capitalists) of Earth. Colonists wouldn't have any real freedom when Earth can cut off the things required for life support if they don't obey and pay.

There wouldn't be a genocide of Native people's and they'd be just as dependent as the early colonials.

Difference is, the colonials eventually became self-sustaining. Can Mars do that? No clue.

[3rdBritan]

There are perchlorates in the Martian soil that are toxic to most plants, animals, and even bacterial life-and also can be a very important source of oxygen in the future. Additionally many plants can survive and extract these perchlorates-however becoming infected in the process. There are also bacteria that can survive off of perchlorates, but I personally do not welcome the idea of having a handful of highly-evolved terran bacteria molding mars over.

In short, the soil is poisonous to most life and poses a threat to permanent habitation of the planet and terraforming efforts.

Bluegreen algea can survive but they purify it in their bodyapparently

[North German Realm]

There wouldn't be a genocide of Native people's and they'd be just as dependent as the early colonials.

Difference is, the colonials eventually became self-sustaining. Can Mars do that? No clue.

That "eventually" was roughly two centuries long. Even afterwards, much of the US was not self-sustaining at first (hence the very existence of the Union). I'm sure that colonies on another planet will need less than 2 centuries to be self-sustaining. Given how difficult (and for the forseeable future) long a trek from Earth to any nearby planet and/or moon is, they'll probably be designed to be self-sustaining, at least for the small population that would be settling there. Of course, all this is only theory, we don't even have permanent bases of any useful capacity on our own moon, much less another planet.

[Salus Maior]

My grandchildren will be strong-boned Terrans, thank you very much.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Or we could always try to stop destroying the planet we're on instead of dreaming of Mars as our savior.

Look, Earth is finite. No matter what we do to save the environment that won't change. Eventually it's going to go kaput and we're just not going to be able to do anything about it. For that reason and that reason alone, it is wise to invest in the technology to colonize other worlds now while we can so we can have back-ups ready and waiting for us for when that inevitable day comes.

Of course we should try to keep the Old Girl healthy and beautiful while we're stuck with her, but that doesn't mean we should turn our eyes away from the stars. Interstellar colonization is the key to humanity's future. Maybe we can't accomplish such feats yet but one day we will unlock the secrets to doing so. It's stupid not to try. The more time we spend figuring out how to make it work, the less time we'll need to get it done.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You and I have a conflict of interest though. I was for crashing comets and asteroids into Mars, to create an atmosphere.

But since you told me there is so much water (and CO2) already on Mars, I want that for atmosphere. It may not be enough for my purposes but it's there already and just needs melting. That's a much lower energy cost than flying out to a comet and nuking it.

Vivolkha the Conservationist
Nobel Hobos 2 the Industrialist

Surely not

I wanted CO2 for the atmosphere and water for the oceans.

What if we take all of Earth's water and put it on Mars?

Answer: https://what-if.xkcd.com/54/

Oh, that's discouraging. Even way more water than I was thinking of, would just freeze. "Mars is just too cold"

Something I read about the Earth's own greenhouse effect might be useful. Apparently the different gases each block re-radiation in different frequencies. So my idea of a self-warming atmosphere might still work if it includes several different gasses. The CO2 from the poles, water vapour and maybe methane?

[Vetalia]

First you have to create an artificial magnetosphere to protect Mars from atmospheric loss and reduce solar radiation at the surface. The early Martian magnetosphere was sufficiently strong enough to protect the planet for at least some length of time; why it stopped is a total mystery but it's suspected major impact events might have had something to do with it. In any case, there was an extended period in which a water cycle existed on the planet along with a sufficiently dense and effective atmosphere to keep temperatures above freezing so it is possible.

Thawing the CO2 ice caps with mirrors would release enough CO2 to start a positive feedback loop that could permit liquid water to be stable on the surface, although the atmosphere itself would need to be heavily modified to increase the amount of nitrogen and oxygen. Maybe terraforming Venus at the same time wouldn't be a bad idea in that regard.