From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Aug 19 1999 - 12:09:36 MDT
Gregory Hather <ghather@netscape.com> writes:
> Why mars won't be teraformed for a long time...
>
> 1. The atmasphere is to thin. If we tried to add more, it would just float off because
> mars's gravity is too weak. (surface gravety = .4*earth surface gravity)
Even if it would float away, the rate would be quite slow by human
measures - calculations in rec.arts.sf.science suggest that even the
moon could sustain a breathable atmosphere for 10,000 years. Mars
would definitely have a much longer time constant, and I'm not even
sure the equilibrium is near vacuum.
> 2. It would be cheaper to "teraform" the Aulstralian desert or
> build taller buildings.
Why are you terraforming? If you want living space, go for
self-sufficient space colonies based on asteroid resources. If you
want to make the grandest possible garden, then Australia might be a
starting point (but the environmental changes brought about by the
terraforming of australia might upset other people) but a planet would
be even greater.
> 3. Space flight takes too long. Asuming you acellarate at 1 g, it would take at least
> 6 months to reach mars.
No, this is wrong. No doubt our spaceflight experts have the exact
time for a standard orbit, but it is on the order of around a year -
with no constant acceleration. If you could make a 1g constant thrust
drive, then I could be there within a few days at most. Unfortunately
there is no such drive on the horizon yet.
> 4. There is no infastructure, and no one to live with.
So? Terraforming is a group effort, and while you are setting things
up you will by necessity have to set up an infrastructure. And after
Mars have become livable (by whatever definitions people use - some
might like the intermediate stages better than the finished ones)
people will want to live there.
> 5. Everyone benifits from teraforming, no matter who pays.
So you think nobody would undertake the project due to free riders?
Altruists might want to do it anyway, especially if it is a cheap
project at a given (high) level of technology. And I guess the
libertarian answer would be to privatize the planet and sell off real
estate.
> 6. No one on earth will allow the transfer of oxygen.
Huh? No terraforming proposals have involved bringing oxygen from the
Earth - that would be downright inefficient. Bring in water from the
outer solar system, and use plants and/or nanotech to produce oxygen
locally.
> 7. A teraformed planet may require matenance.
So? You already have the technology in place.
> 8. It is too big of a project for any corporation or nation to pay for it.
This assumes current technology and economics - today it isn't even
physically feasible to terraform. But costs seem to decrease compared
to wage buying power at a roughly exponential rate, meaning that a
project that today is too expensive and infeasible might be quite
cheap and practical a few centuries hence. Just look at the stuff
ordinary people do today for fun that would in the past have required
the wealth of a king.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:49 MST