Could Mars be partially terraformed, then Marsform humans to live with the results?

[potoole]

If we terraform Mars as much as possible; an atmosphere with a satisfactory amount of oxygen and sources of water (a few other necessaries). Then bioengineer humans that could survive under the resulting conditions.

Would that be forbidding?

Patrick

[potoole]

Well, I guess that question is out of the question.

[moozoo]

Bioengineering some form of nutritional plant and insect life to survive might be a better question and a much easier goal to achieve.

[potoole]

Bioengineering some form of nutritional plant and insect life to survive might be a better question and a much easier goal to achieve.

If the necessity arrived, you don't think we should bio-engineer humans, for the sake of preserving human intelligence? What if human life on Earth and the possible extinction of human intelligence was highly probable? We might be the only sentient creatures in this galaxy. We don't know that, but we might be. Presently, we might be the only creatures that are capable of observing the universe and wondering about, and reflecting upon its existence.

[Jens]

I sort of doubt that you could do it (the bioengineering part), because it's just too complex. Suppose you decided to bioengineer a human with a thick hide to protect them from radioactivity. Now the sweat glands become useless, so what do you for heat exchange? You have to now bioengineer the human with a long wet tongue to dissipate heat. But humans use their tongues to speak, so now you have to design a second tongue to fit above the first for vocalization. But that doesn't fit in the mouth, so you have to engineer a bigger mouth. I think it would go on and on.

Much easier IMO to use a spacesuit and underground base.

[Ara Pacis]

I think it would be easier to adapt mars to humans than adapt humans to mars. but if we can't adapt mars enough, we can always use mechanical aids.

And could you change your opening post color, please. It looks like a moderator talking.

[mutleyeng]

it depends what you mean by bioengineer.
I think i recall reading that from experience of ISS, it has been noticed that some people have had significantly less impact on health over the norm - particularly in bone/muscle loss.
It may not be engineered, but there could be genetic selection criteria along those lines.

[Noclevername]

I sort of doubt that you could do it (the bioengineering part), because it's just too complex. Suppose you decided to bioengineer a human with a thick hide to protect them from radioactivity. Now the sweat glands become useless, so what do you for heat exchange? You have to now bioengineer the human with a long wet tongue to dissipate heat. But humans use their tongues to speak, so now you have to design a second tongue to fit above the first for vocalization. But that doesn't fit in the mouth, so you have to engineer a bigger mouth. I think it would go on and on.

Much easier IMO to use a spacesuit and underground base.

No practical thickness of skin would be enough to provide any signifigant degree of c-ray protection; A more effective method to adapt to radioactivity would be to enhance the DNA repair mechanisms.

[Selfsim]

I think it would be easier to adapt mars to humans than adapt humans to mars. but if we can't adapt mars enough, we can always use mechanical aids.

So an interesting snippet along similar, but slightly different lines, appeared in the media today .. a bunch of students are looking into this in more detail .. Students looking into bioengineering bacteria to help humans survive on Mars

The idea is to create a cell that allows the DNA of other organisms to be inserted that have desired traits, like a kind of beetle that has natural cold resistance, for example, because it’s really cold on Mars, averaging something like eighty degrees (Fahrenheit) below zero. Mars is also subjected to a lot of radiation, so any bacteria with hopes of surviving would need something like certain types of bacteria that harbor a lot of manganese. The BioBricks are in essence genetic modules that can be plugged into the Hell Cell to help in creating bacteria that possess the desired traits.

The overall idea is to see if bacteria can be created that would be helpful to people living or working on Mars. Tiny organisms that can separate silica and metals, for example, would be useful to help in recycling equipment used to reach the planet, into other equipment more useful for surviving once there. Also helpful would be bacteria that could make medicines, or produce materials that could be used to build structures. Last year the team did just that, engineering a BioBrick that allowed bacteria to produce a hard material similar to cement.

I think bio-engineering may be one of the key essentials for speeding up adaptation to an environment like Mars'. If complex parts of a cell are already able to be bio-engineered from its protein components (like ribosomes), then I can see this approach as being quite viable.

Perhaps Mars' true value lies in being established as a quarantined laboratory environment for bio-engineering … (thereby alleviating any concerns about accidental pathogens being introduced into the Terran biosphere). The pharmaceutical industry should take notice of such ideas ! (Need to find some decent water supplies first though ..)

Regards

[Rhaedas]

I think bio-engineering may be one of the key essentials for speeding up adaptation to an environment like Mars'. If complex parts of a cell are already able to be bio-engineered from its protein components (like ribosomes), then I can see this approach as being quite viable.

Perhaps Mars' true value lies in being established as a quarantined laboratory environment for bio-engineering … (thereby alleviating any concerns about accidental pathogens being introduced into the Terran biosphere). The pharmaceutical industry should take notice of such ideas ! (Need to find some decent water supplies first though ..)

A combination of all things I think. Bioengineering as you mention, nanotech to whatever degree is possible (for DNA repair among other things), and of course mechanical means. Mars will never be Terra, but I think with effort we can make it survivable for assisted humans, however that assistance is needed. Just raising the atmospheric pressure will be helpful, even if we always need to bring our own oxygen to breath outside.

And Selfsim, your last statement of using Mars as a lab...that could easily spark a Red Mars/Green Mars debate.

[John Jaksich]

As Ray Kurzeil mentions in his book: The Singularity is Near--it will most probably be just a matter of time before we are able to self-engineer or bio-engineer our own destiny. It will most probably be in "fits and starts"--if you can pardon my expression. Someone will always find fault with the methods--but IMHO we will have speed-up evolution if we are to overcome some of our own self-made problems.

[potoole]

I sort of doubt that you could do it (the bioengineering part), because it's just too complex. Suppose you decided to bioengineer a human with a thick hide to protect them from radioactivity. Now the sweat glands become useless, so what do you for heat exchange? You have to now bioengineer the human with a long wet tongue to dissipate heat. But humans use their tongues to speak, so now you have to design a second tongue to fit above the first for vocalization. But that doesn't fit in the mouth, so you have to engineer a bigger mouth. I think it would go on and on.

Much easier IMO to use a spacesuit and underground base.

Points well taken, thank you

[Noclevername]

If you reach the point of adding life to the surface of Mars, eventually that life will continue to alter its environment. What will happen to the genetically adapted Martian humans if the environment ever becomes "too" Earthlike?

[potoole]

I think it would be easier to adapt mars to humans than adapt humans to mars. but if we can't adapt mars enough, we can always use mechanical aids.

And could you change your opening post color, please. It looks like a moderator talking.

Thank you. Sorry about the color. I don't know how to change it, though, but I will not use that colr in the future.

PO'T

OK, I found out how to change the color, and have done so by editing.

[Noclevername]

Thank you. Sorry about the color. I don't know how to change it, though, but I will not use that colr in the future.

PO'T

Hit the "Edit Post" button and delete the color tags from the beginning & end of the post.

[cjameshuff]

No practical thickness of skin would be enough to provide any signifigant degree of c-ray protection; A more effective method to adapt to radioactivity would be to enhance the DNA repair mechanisms.

Or just pile up some regolith over your habitats. And then you don't need special facilities for visitors, and both Earthmen and Martians can meet in the same room without someone needing a pressure suit or hypobaric chamber. Avoids a lot of medical expenses and R&D too, and you can actually do something with those huge reserves of CO2 and water ice, something more constructive than using them as dead weight to gravitationally pressurize the outdoors to levels that primarily make weather worse without any actual benefit...

I say we lunaform it. Freeze the atmosphere out at polar processing plants, cover ice fields with protective reflective films and shade fences to minimize summer losses. Establish a thinner, less variable atmosphere that requires little or no heat shielding for incoming vehicles, reduces drag losses for launches, allows you to use surface mass drivers through with little trouble, and which minimizes interference with particle and laser beams through for beamed propulsion systems, while allowing satellites to maintain stable orbits at lower altitudes. Removing the atmosphere also increases the effectiveness of solar power, both by reducing atmospheric losses and reducing dust contamination of photovoltaic panels. Then we can efficiently ship volatiles and such out to orbital habitats where the real population centers are.

[Ara Pacis]

Or just pile up some regolith over your habitats. And then you don't need special facilities for visitors, and both Earthmen and Martians can meet in the same room without someone needing a pressure suit or hypobaric chamber. Avoids a lot of medical expenses and R&D too, and you can actually do something with those huge reserves of CO2 and water ice, something more constructive than using them as dead weight to gravitationally pressurize the outdoors to levels that primarily make weather worse without any actual benefit...

I say we lunaform it. Freeze the atmosphere out at polar processing plants, cover ice fields with protective reflective films and shade fences to minimize summer losses. Establish a thinner, less variable atmosphere that requires little or no heat shielding for incoming vehicles, reduces drag losses for launches, allows you to use surface mass drivers through with little trouble, and which minimizes interference with particle and laser beams through for beamed propulsion systems, while allowing satellites to maintain stable orbits at lower altitudes. Removing the atmosphere also increases the effectiveness of solar power, both by reducing atmospheric losses and reducing dust contamination of photovoltaic panels. Then we can efficiently ship volatiles and such out to orbital habitats where the real population centers are.

Why would someone live in space when they can live on a planet?

[Noclevername]

Why would someone live in space when they can live on a planet?

Three words-- adjustable spin gravity.

[Ara Pacis]

Three words-- adjustable spin gravity.

You can spin on the planet or moon's surface.

[cjameshuff]

Why would someone live in space when they can live on a planet?

Access to solar energy without the annoyances of planetary rotation, gravity field, wind-borne dust, cloud cover, etc to complicate issues, transportation to other locations in the solar system without fighting your way out of a gravity well, environments with a range of apparent gravity extending all the way down to freefall, no weather, earthquakes, etc...

Why would someone want to live on a planet, considering that they'll require an enclosed habitat almost indistinguishable from an orbital one for comfort?

You can spin on the planet or moon's surface.

You can, at some significant cost in complexity. Heavily-loaded bearings are unavoidable, unlike orbital habitats. And on a body with an atmosphere, you need to either construct an evacuated enclosure or waste power fighting aerodynamic drag losses, on top of bearing losses.

[Noclevername]

You can, at some significant cost in complexity. Heavily-loaded bearings are unavoidable, unlike orbital habitats. And on a body with an atmosphere, you need to either construct an evacuated enclosure or waste power fighting aerodynamic drag losses, on top of bearing losses.

In other words you'd be building a space habitat on the planet's surface.

[Noclevername]

Since you'd have to go through space anyway to reach Mars, it wouldn't be any extra effort to build a habitat in space. It also wouldn't involve the risks of atmospheric entry or landing.

[Jens]

Why would someone want to live on a planet, considering that they'll require an enclosed habitat almost indistinguishable from an orbital one for comfort?

Almost indistinguishable?

You mean that a home on the earth is nearly the same as an orbital habitat?

[Hop_David]

Almost indistinguishable?

You mean that a home on the earth is nearly the same as an orbital habitat?

It's obvious from context that the planet in question is Mars, not earth.

Asteroid tin cans, lunar tin cans, martian tin cans -- they'd all be about the same so far as comfort goes.

[Noclevername]

Asteroid tin cans, lunar tin cans, martian tin cans -- they'd all be about the same so far as comfort goes.

And if we can learn to create sustainable life-supporting ecology in "tin cans" then we can live essentially anywhere. Even those of us with no "tailoring".

[Ara Pacis]

Access to solar energy without the annoyances of planetary rotation,

That's an argument for putting solar power stations in space not for living in space. As for living, if peeps have a similar diurnal pattern on Mars as they do on earth, peak load will be at peak solar generation. Although I'd expect them to quickly go to nuclear power.

gravity field,

If people want a gravity lower than on Mars. If they want higher, there is spinning available.

wind-borne dust,

Outside of any type of atmospheric planetary/moon-ary habitat. Inside the habitat/home they'd have dust from shed skin, clothing and possessions and fungus and all the other things that create dust everywhere humans live.

cloud cover,

Some people like their ceilings to be opaque. In a spinning habitat in space, there probably won't even be a ceiling that can look to space.

transportation to other locations in the solar system without fighting your way out of a gravity well,

We're talking about living, not traversing.

environments with a range of apparent gravity extending all the way down to freefall,

Do you think people will want that so much that they'd want to live in space instead of planet-side? Not me. If I want to experience free fall, I'll visit space, but I don't think I'd want to live there.

no weather,

I like weather. It's one of the main reasons why I want to live on a planet.

earthquakes, etc...

Does mars have quakes? (ignoring the earth-centricity of the statement )

Why would someone want to live on a planet, considering that they'll require an enclosed habitat almost indistinguishable from an orbital one for comfort?

They won't have to be inside all the time even if not terraformed. And the planet-side structures can be built much differently. If it's terraformed then they may not even need a p-suit. Some people like having vistas and weather and go for walks outside under their own power and maybe even feel the wind in their hair.

You can, at some significant cost in complexity. Heavily-loaded bearings are unavoidable, unlike orbital habitats. And on a body with an atmosphere, you need to either construct an evacuated enclosure or waste power fighting aerodynamic drag losses, on top of bearing losses.

Maybe, depends on how much weight or force is on those bearings (assuming they're not magnetic or fluid). A rotating habitat in space may also need heavily loaded wearings if it spins inside a non-rotating protective shield. If the shield also rotates then you're adding to the stress on the cross-members and hoop and complicating the docking system and creating a greater hazard to other space traffic in the event of a structural failure (flywheel explosion). It might be worth the investment for temporary abodes for transit and vacation or employment deployments, but for settling down to have a family?

A spinning habitat on a planet might have atmospheric loses, but how much would that be? Can you quantify for us how much energy would be lost in the friction of a rotating disc with the atmosphere?

On the plus side, the rotating habitat on a planet can vary speed and stop much more easily due to its ability to transfer momentum to a much larger and relatively stationary object. The ability to vary the habitat's enveloping atmosphere also allows repairs and construction to progress more easily. It can also have a thicker radiation/thermal shield for less investment. It can also have local solar or nuclear power with less complexity. This is assuming people living on the planet even want or need a rotating habitat.

[Noclevername]

So, to sum up all sides, different people want different things for different reasons.

[Ara Pacis]

It's obvious from context that the planet in question is Mars, not earth.

Asteroid tin cans, lunar tin cans, martian tin cans -- they'd all be about the same so far as comfort goes.

Depends on what you're referring to. If you require rotation, then you have to go with a radial style of construction design but on a planet it can be essentially orthogonal. Plus, you don't have to worry about small scale Coriolis effects or load-balancing in a non-rotating habitat.

The science isn't complete, but I have a strong feeling that we won't need acceleration 24/7. If I'm right, then living a large portion of the day in an orthogonal linear accelerated gravity field, even one lower than earth's, is preferable to living in a strongly graduated and radial gravity field constantly (with a sole option of freefall for orthogonal space design.

[Ara Pacis]

So, to sum up all sides, different people want different things for different reasons.

Yeah, but the problem is that cjameshuff's idea and my idea preclude one another, because he would destroy the environments that both exists now and that I want to create (recreate).

[Noclevername]

Yeah, but the problem is that cjameshuff's idea and my idea preclude one another, because he would destroy the environments that both exists now and that I want to create (recreate).

I wouldn't worry about it, "lunarforming" is probably the least likely scenario to gain support. For one thing, we already have a Moon with those qualities-- along with most of the bodies in the Solar System, which are all more vacuum-y than even a fully frozen Mars could be*. Many are also easier to reach, have less gravity and some have more volatiles per volume than Mars. If we're going to put such a massive industrial effort into Mars, it'll be to make it more Earthlike, not less.

*At least as far as any human effort could get it.