From the Andrew Lillico (via Bishop Hill) the costs of terraforming Mars -vs- mitigating Earthly climate change seem to have similar values and timescales. Josh provides a cartoon as well.
We can terraform Mars for the same cost as mitigating climate change. Which would you rather?
One frequentlyquotedstudy of the global costs of mitigating climate change put them at around $3 trillion by 2100, with the main benefits being felt between 2100 and 2200. Here is alternative way to spend around the same amount of money with around the same timescale of payback: terraforming Mars. A standard estimate is that, for about $2-$3 trillion, in between 100 and 200 years we would be able to get Mars from its current “red planet” (dead planet) status to ” blue planet” (i.e. a dense enough atmosphere and high enough temperature for Martian water in the poles and soil to melt, creating seas) – achievable in about 100 years – and from there to microbes and algae getting us to “green planet” status within 200 to 600 years.
There are two standard objections to such terraforming. First, it is said to be too expensive, altogether, to be plausible. Second, it is said to require too long a timescale to be plausible. Both of these objections appear decisively answered by climate change policies and indeed energy policies in general. Between now and the 2035 alone, global investment in energy and energy efficiency (in many cases with a many-decades payback period) is estimated at about $40 trillion, of which $6 trillion is in renewables and $1 trillion in low-carbon nuclear. We are willing to spend many trillions on projects that could take over a century to come to fruition.
Josh is on the case:
Of course, we could also burrow into the moon, which is between Africa and Asia in surface area.
sturgishooper says: August 20, 2014 at 10:46 am
Jupiter would need on the order of 100 times more mass than it has in order to sustain fusion. This wasn’t well understood when Clarke wrote “2001”.
_______________________________
Are you sure? It is density that ignites fusion, not mass. Clarke’s proposal was to increase the density of Jupiter by turning gasses into solids.
And this is terraforming, because the new solar system would give perhaps four extra Earths.
ralph
ralfellis says:
August 20, 2014 at 11:37 am
Yes. I am sure.
Process of star formation as presently understood:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html
Observation shows that “brown dwarfs” of about ~13 times the mass of Jupiter may fuse deuterium and those of ~65 times also could fuse lithium.
http://www.universetoday.com/19237/dense-exoplanet-creates-classification-calamity/
To be the smallest true, hydrogen-fusing star, ie a red dwarf, requires a mass of at least 75-80 Jupiters, but probably more in most instances. They’re still smaller and cooler than sun-class stars, but far more numerous and longer-lived.
Oxygen: Water vapor will photodissociate into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen will diffuse from the top of the atmosphere into space because its molecular velocity would be higher than the escape velocity. Nitrogen or argon would be handy as a diluent (if any could be found). Or neon or kyrpton (but likely to be less available). There aren’t too many other gases that are safe to breathe (or don’t have anaesthetic effects). Maybe freon? (ick!)
Titan: The atmosphere of titan is nearly at cryogenic temperatures. There are no molecules traveling fast enough to exceed the escape velocity, thus the atmposphere remains.
More Oxygen: Another approach would be (nuclear reactor) + (iron oxide Martian surface material) => (iron structural products) + (oxygen exhaust). (Martian atmosphere plant per Edgar Rice Burroughs.)
No spellchecker. “atmposphere” ha, ha
The magnetosphere may not be important in retaining an atmosphere, as shown by Venus, but it is important in retaining water vapor. The magnetosphere is also very important in deflecting damaging radiation. If we were to somehow create a habitable atmosphere on Mars you better wear plenty of sunblock, like the SPF 5000 stuff from Robocop 2.
Also, wouldn’t large comet impacts send most of the vaporized material into space since Mars has a low gravity and hardly any atmosphere?
Robert W Turner says:
August 20, 2014 at 1:14 pm
It might be possible to engineer a low-speed impact, such as is thought to have formed the Dark Side lunar highlands.
Terraform Mars?
Whatever for? They won’t like it after we’ve made Mars into another terra firma.
First they’ll complain about how hard it is to get a tan, then it’ll be the air smells, and all of that red dust stains on the suits.
If the eco-dotty want Mars terraformed, then they should follow Josh’s excellent suggestion which is remarkably similar to one of the ‘Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ endings.
I’m sure we’d all consider possibly contributing to eco-terra-reformers getting launched towards Mars. Certainly all of those impressively credentialed scien-buffoons can finish the trip on their own initiative. They’re experts, right?
Robert,
Maybe put a comet into a decaying orbit around Mars?
”
James the Elder says:
August 19, 2014 at 3:58 pm
psion (@psion) says:
August 19, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Interestingly, Venus also has no magnetic field.
———————————————————————————————
More gravity, and the heavier molecule CO2 resists the wind, much like Mars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
”
Magnetic fields appear to need two things. 1. Molten core. 2. Reasonable rotation rate. Essentially, Venus rotation is at a dead stop with a small drift in the backwards direction. Hence, Venus could be liquid core and mantle but no rotation means no field. Mars is much smaller than Earth and spins very close to 24 hrs per day – no field suggests no liquid core. Being smaller- less mass to cool off after formation so it’s very likely that the core solidified billions of years ago.
Solar wind may have settled down a bit since Mar’s earlier days when it lost its magnetic field but it’s probably totally foolish to think we could teraform Mars. There is this giant canyon which might make a really great ‘dome’ and living accomodations but one should remember that Mars is much smaller than Earth surface area wise.
cba says:
August 20, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Mars’ surface area is about the same as Earth’s land surface area, ie ~30% of our planet’s total surface area.
We have a WINNER!
Brian Epps says:
August 20, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Now that is funny.
Everyone misses the obvious and frequently proposed solution to the lack of a magnetosphere: nickel-iron asteroids. What a coincidence that we happen to have a few relatively close to mars itself! You move them into synchronous orbits and magnetize them with loops. Occasionally you’ll have to re-magnetize them, but that’s no more involved than hooking up a suitably healthy power source (think orbiting small nuke) to the coils and running some current through them.
You won’t end up with just a simple dipole like Earth has, but who cares? This isn’t the big issue with Mars.
I made a comment about terraforming, and got ripped apart by the people that didn’t like my conclusion. That made me dig even deeper, and refine my ideas. Here is the link to my weblog where I just posted my response (the original post was removed from the other site) for the second time.
Current ideas of what’s needed to actually create a habitable planet include enough mass to maintain a molten iron core, sufficiently fast rotation for that core to create a magnetic field, a large enough moon to balance the rotation, create tides, and aid in atmospheric flow, the right combination of atmospheric gasses, and the ability for water to exist as a liquid. Earth is the only planet in our solar system that currently meets those criteria. To terraform Mars, we’d need to add a TREMENDOUS amount of mass, much of it dense (i.e., metal-rich); increase the surface temperature through additional gravity compression of the atmosphere, and give Mars a moon big enough to add stresses that would result in plate tectonics. For Venus, we’d need to move something like Vesta into a VERY CLOSE orbit for a few thousand years to speed up the planet’s rotation (which is why it has such a weak magnetic field), stir up the atmosphere, and get the planet to acting more like Earth.
Terraforming both Mars and Venus is doable, but it won’t be easy, it won’t be cheap, and it won’t be quick, except perhaps in a geological time scale.
mikeweatherford says:
August 20, 2014 at 7:34 pm
Thinking big on solar system engineering. I like that, but ultimately the sun is going red giant.
Hi, years ago, Carl Sagan suggested it would not be tooooo hard to terriform Mars. However, he didn’t know as much about Mars as we do now. It’s too cold mates.Frozen CO2? Not worth the trillions for heaven’s sake. We may also awaken things that have been laying dormant for centuries too. Anyway I’m off to shop, have fun.
Mars Is Not Ours
Well, a choice between having my head cracked open with a baseball bat (mitigation) or a free meal at the restaurant of my choice (Mars). Same price. I will take the life-positive one, thank you.
CO2 is good for both plants and animals, and the ideal temperature may be as much as twelve Celsius degrees warmer than the present, from paleontological charts indicating that this was the temperature in the Cambrian and Permian, very steady.
Let’s allow Earth to grow richer in life instead of trying to stop it–YES.
And WUWT’ers know that the real issue of Climate Change is money. Mars would cost LOTS of money–and yes, we really would end up with a habitable 2nd home. So there is a chance that promoting this might REALLY redirect greedy people from “saving” the Earth for nonliving things into something that would be an eventual benefit.
This post also illustrates the value of nuclear fuel. It is for SPACE not Earth. We need a few new reactors per year worldwide to train space engineers.
I have an article on the 1960’s US space program that says there was a debate between building a one-shot rocket that went from Earth to Moon and back again, versus dividing the job into pieces. A two-ship design was eventually used: Earth to lunar orbit, and lunar lander.
Today, we need to build a five-stage program.
1. We already have Earth-to-Earth orbit shuttles and rockets.
2. Space stations. We have one and I think we need two or three more.
3. Nuclear powered orbital shuttles that go from Earth orbit/space stations to orbits around the moon and Mars. They hold cargo and throw sturdy construction materials down to the lunar and Martian surfaces where we will build our first cities. We can build solar-powered ones, too.
4. Orbital docking stations around the Moon and Mars. Mars’ moons can be used if they work.
5. Lunar and Mars landers.
I would love to see International space contests to build that stuff added to the Olympics opening or closing ceremonies. Private individuals are allowed to compete.