Say someone wanted to start life on another planet(mars). From what one member said, Mars' atmosphere is made of 95.32% carbon dioxide. Now, If you were to put certain plants on mars in earths soil and what not, wouldn't they live and produce oxygen, making an atmosphere of oxygen. Ive been wondering about this idea for quite a while and I would like to know what people think of this idea. let me know, thanks

This idea has allready been thought of by the NASA scientists. It's called terraforming. I don't remember the entire process, but it involves plants.

Yeah, and will take ages before the air is breathable.
That is a major draw-back.
I also believe the amount of water on Mars will be a problem.

It depends on which plants, I suppose. Mars has freezing temperatures at night, so the only reasonable plants to put on Mars would be cactus-like vegetation. And being in a near vacuum situation, any liquid water on the surface of Mars would evaporate. As Merlijn mentioned, water would be difficult to obtain, being that it's either all frozen, or deep deep underground.

It's a good idea though, mossfan125, but maybe one that's just out of our reach for now. :)

There has been discussion of genetically altering arctic lichens to darken them. Planted on mars near water sources, like the southern martian pole or the newly discovered water-bearing areas, the darkened lichens would absorb more sunlight, enhancing photosynthesis.

Life on mars?

http://www.renegadechickens.com/wacky/MarsImage.JPG

Yes, that may be true, but what If you could transport the water to make it disperse itself as neccesary to keep the plants alive and the idea of darkening them, wow wouldn't that be awesome. I dont know what kind of machine or ship would be able to transport it (the water). Maybe someone could think of something. LMK of ideas.

A belated welcome to sciforums, mossfan125!

AFAIK, Mars atmosphere is very thin (very low pressure) and as plant respiration is passive, pressure might be too low for respiration.

....pressure might be too low for respiration
Good and interesting point! Is it?

Maybe, I just dont see the connection between atmospheric pressure and the growth and respiration of a plant. I am not a botonist so I am probably being naive. Maybe you can enlighten me on the subject paulsamuel.

Personally, I think the next Major NASA project (after the space station) should be building some sort of outpost on Mars. We would have to have some sort of biodome up there. That way it would be a lot easier to experiment.

And I say forget Mars. Let's colonize and mine the Moon first. It's better to learn how to walk before trying to run. Besides, the Moon would be a much better launching pad than Earth.

As for terraforming Mars, no ordinary plant is going to survive the temperature extremes, the severe drought at the surface, the punishing levels of ultraviolet and cosmic radiation, combined with low levels of sunlight, hostile soil chemistry, and lack of any supporting biosphere. Any terraforming effort would have to start with some sort of a lichen, IMHO (as lichens are among the hardiest land species in existence.) It'd probably have to be a heavily bioengineered lichen.

But actually, I've seen it reported that Mars' 1/3 gravity is not sufficient to retain a thick atmosphere. Even if humans succeed in temporarily creating an Earth-like atmosphere on Mars, it will take but a few million years for all of that gas to just escape into space...

Overdoze,
You expend energy to leave earth, then expend energy to land on the moon without wrecking your ship, then expend energy to leave the moon, then expend energy to land wherever, when instead you can expend energy to leave earth, then land wherever. You're adding an extra stop there.

I do agree though, that we should go to the moon first. We use the oppurtunity to test and perfect the technology that would be used on Mars or wherever. I certainly wouldn't want to go that far(to Mars) with an untested prototype.

Originally posted by Gifted
You expend energy to leave earth, then expend energy to land on the moon without wrecking your ship, then expend energy to leave the moon, then expend energy to land wherever, when instead you can expend energy to leave earth, then land wherever. You're adding an extra stop there.


True, if you want to do it that way. Or alternatively, we could establish large cities and industries straight on the Moon, and manufacture our spacecraft in place. Then we launch from the Moon instead of the Earth. It's all in how you want to approach it... ;)

I better like the idea of constructing and launching the spaceships from Moon.
much more energy and money sufficient, once you build the instalations.

besides- we have water there (means also Hydrogen)- so I don't see any real problem, except for the startup expenses

Couldn't we/they maybe create an artificial chemical reaction that would change Mars' (or the Moon's) atmosphere to more oxygen based(using some kind of catalyst to speed it up)? And then, once the planet's begun to change, temperature starting to rise, we could add plants and stuff?

Why not build the spaceships in orbit, from asteriods knocked into orbit? We sould develop the moon. It provide materials needed by the ships. But unless you have a serious need to go there, I see no reason to land on the moon, just t go to Mars or wherever.

Tereaforming Mars would only be practical if settling an already suitable planet outside the solar system takes too long and costs more than terraforming.

Mars' moons could be used for mining, too. :)

I think they're aptly named, Mars' moons. Phobos and Deimos: Fear and Dread. :) :cool:

Originally posted by Avatar
I better like the idea of constructing and launching the spaceships from Moon.
much more energy and money sufficient, once you build the instalations.

besides- we have water there (means also Hydrogen)- so I don't see any real problem, except for the startup expenses

More money sufficient? I imagine it would cost much more to build stations on the moon where we could develop a craft to head to Mars than it would to just build the craft here and leave from Earth.

once you build the instalations.
I said

and besides- why limit yourself to Mars?!

Moon can be our outpost from which to launch all interstellar probes, satellites and spaceships to other Solar System planets a lot cheaper than from Earth and it will pay off in longer term

If in all our future history we would limit ourselves with one ship to Mars then it won't pay off, but if not.....

What does "LMK of ideas" and AFAIK mean? :confused:

AFAIK "AFAIK" means "As Far As I Know"

LMK means let me know. I think the idea of changing the air is good. Because as soon as the air is changed the temperature will change most likely. Also the mining and biodoming of the moon and making it a launch pad would be cool because not only would there be less energy needed to transport things/humans, but it would be less space to travel.

Did you read my posts? Launching from the moon is only practical if the resources come from the moon. While it is easier to take off from the moon that from earth, if your shipping stuff to the moon, only to launch it again, your wasting energy. It would be easier to build in orbit and launch from orbit.

there is no real question about the resources on the moon.

There is Hydrogen and Hydrogen 3

and consider those all metiorites that have fallen on it's surface = metal

" .. and consider those all metiorites that have fallen on it's surface = metal"

Hmmm ... maybe not that much since only a little over 5% are metalic.

See: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/SPACE/SolarSystem/Meteors/Meteorites.html

Take care ;)

oh- thanx Chagur:)
I appreciate

The problem is people wanting to go to the moon and then Mars. If you have no reason to stop by the moon, the don't! It's cheaper to go straight to Mars or wherever.

if we plan frequent travels to Mars (and other solar system planets) and back then we need a moon launching base

it's that simple

The moon base would be supplying Lunar matierials to orbit because it's cheaper to ship from the moon to orbit than from the earth. Other materials would be taken from asteriods put in earth orbit, and only people and a few rare materials would be shipped from the earth.

Quiz question: What would be the primary material in space ships?

Why go to any planet when were up there. Getting up there in space is the hard bit and creating sustainable biosystems that we can live in.
The drive to go and sort out this planet and that planet says more about the human mind than anything else.
We believe that we have to terraform a world so we can live on it when in fact the technology we use to get there makes the need for a planet minimal to say the least. We could live in space. Get what we want from asteroids moons etc and live good lives.

I think it's good that we want to terraform Mars and our Galaxy lol.
It may be something that may save our civilization in deep future.

Don't put all the eggs in one basket;)

In addition to being an interesting notion and prospect for the future of humanity, Life on Mars is also one of the best early David Bowie songs.

can't you ever talk on topic?

essexman brings up a good one that could be the subject of another thread; whether we should even use another planet as base.

I guess my main issue is; How do we get Mars to retain and keep it's atmosphere once done? Indications are that Mars once had a thicker atmosphere or there would have been no free water to carve the terrain as it looks. Now, they are looking for water underground as it can not exist across the planet under the conditions that Mars now has. Indications from tests done by satellite point towards the atmosphere escaping into space. This means either we maintain an amount in excess of what escapes or we lose what we make over time.

The thing is guys mars did have water and still does.
It lost most of it to space bacause it's gravity is too weak to stop it from boiling away slowly.
If we add more water mars will just as surely lose it quicker than we can replenish it.

ok- the idea is probably said smwhere previously- but what if we make either underground base or a ground base protected with some kind of force field (yet to be researched I think) (it will allow base to expand)

I just think when enough people get into and work in space, if the question of terraforming mars came up . Many people will say "why bother, were ok here, we like it in space"! . As you suggest above I think areas will be made habitable for mining or leisure activities, they may be enormous, but the whole Planet?. Only time will tell.

ppl won't like living in space because
1st - it's more dangerous
2nd more cosmic radiation
3rd no firm ground lol
4th limited space to move
5th artificial gravity (what i smthing breaks)
6th- security from asteroids and all the rest cosmic junk
etc etc- a planet is a much more wishable living environment

It may well be that humans find space very difficult to adapt to psychologically. and though time start to colonise planets by use of terraforming. But the general belief of a lot of scientists is that space is a benign environment, in other words pretty safe not a lot happens and when it does you see it coming. Say solar radiation picks up, you just move behind a planet and hide much like we would retreat indoors from a thunderstorm. Small meteor impacts will be treated as wear and tear. the big ones will be seen on radar and avoided.
I think the humans of the future will use far more resources than we do now, space has unlimited resources so whether we want to or not economics will force us to use and process what we find up there that means communities will exist up there one day. Just think, unlimited solar power, minerals, hydrocarbons etc.

6th- security from asteroids and all the rest cosmic junk

Don't know if anyone else has ever thought of this... but you said that the mass of Mars wasn't large enough to support an atmosphere, well why dont we crash the asteroids into mars?

They would have to be sent in at the right angle etc. so that they dont burn up, but we would increase the Mass.

Would this be practicle? Obviously avoiding all costs.

I would wonder at the expense of doing this. Would it not be cheaper just to make an artifical enviroment?

One of the problem also is the lack of a magnosphere. This is where one of the driving forces for the loss of atmosphere comes from also. (Solar winds) They knock the ions into space from the upper atmosphere. (Which was what was detected by the satellite test) We would need some method to help the core become molten again in order to restablish it.

Crashing ice balls into Mars was an idea that came up some time ago to get water on Mars before it was established that water is there but buried.

I said ignoring all costs. But never mind.

method to help the core become molten again in order to restablish it

Lets nudge the planet nearer to the sun then. That would heat up the core.

Got my Nasa report through this morning, it described different propulsion technologys currently being dedveloped. We could use a huge solar sail to slow down Mars, and bring it into a closer orbit to the sun.

This will take a hell of a long time, but it wouldn't have to be manned. We could just leave it there for ten thousand years, or until nuclear power feasible in space.

note:- I first came across this idea in an athur c.clarke book.

I know it may sound silly, bit I think turning the ice caps into vapor would be more effective than the plant idea.

On a differant note there was a test done during the viking exploration involving methaine(sp) gas readings. They tested a sample of the matin soil and measured the releace of methaine gas, a indicator of microbal life. The tests showed that methaine was being produced in the soil, but NASA discarded the tests saying that there was an error in the data. Who knows might have been bad data, or there could be microbes chomping away at the menerals found on mars. Its not all that farfetched to believe there are microbes on mars.

sorry I got a bit off topic there =')

Is going to be the first attempt at commercial development if all
goes well:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/020902/020902-8.html

Take care ;)

Why are they concerned with biological material and pollution? The bio thing has already happened, so that doesn't matter, and I just make an "outdoor storage area" and problem solved. It's not like there is an enviromnent to mess up.

Originally posted by essexman
It may well be that humans find space very difficult to adapt to psychologically. and though time start to colonise planets by use of terraforming. But the general belief of a lot of scientists is that space is a benign environment, in other words pretty safe not a lot happens and when it does you see it coming. Say solar radiation picks up, you just move behind a planet and hide much like we would retreat indoors from a thunderstorm. Small meteor impacts will be treated as wear and tear. the big ones will be seen on radar and avoided.
I think the humans of the future will use far more resources than we do now, space has unlimited resources so whether we want to or not economics will force us to use and process what we find up there that means communities will exist up there one day. Just think, unlimited solar power, minerals, hydrocarbons etc.

paradise!
essexman - denizen of the stars!!

Give us a few centuries. We will put some life on mars ourselves if need be.

The theory dat human mentions may be true but it creates new problems within