Another option for thickening the atmosphere of Mars, and, in turn, raising the temperature of the planet, would be to set up solar-powered, greenhouse-gas producing factories. Humans have had a lot of experience with this over the last century, as we have inadvertently released tons of greenhouse gases into our own atmosphere, which some believe is raising the Earth's temperature.
The same heating effect could be reproduced on Mars by setting up hundreds of these factories. Their sole purpose would be to pump out CFCs, methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These greenhouse-gas factories would either have to be ferried to Mars or made out of materials already located on Mars, which would take years to process. In order to transport these machines to Mars, they would have to be lightweight and efficient.
These greenhouse machines would mimic the natural process of plant photosynthesis , inhaling carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. It would take many years, but the Mars atmosphere would slowly be oxygenated to the point that Mars colonists would need only a breathing-assistance apparatus, and not a pressure suit as worn by astronauts.
Photosynthetic bacteria could also be used in place of or in addition to these greenhouse machines. They believe that hurling large, icy asteroids containing ammonia at the red planet would produce tons of greenhouse gases and water. For this to be done, nuclear thermal rocket engines would have to be somehow attached to asteroids from the outer solar system. The rockets would move the asteroids at about 4 kilometers per second, for a period of about 10 years, before the rockets would shut off and allow the billion-ton asteroids to glide, unpowered, toward Mars.
Energy released upon impact would be about million megawatts of power. This certainly would fulfill the population requirement, but a further distance is a challenge both in fuel and in time. First, fuel. The Musk plan involves sending multiple crafts each with a total payload of 15 tons per trip.
This gives us a ratio of approximately 5 tons per person. Some of the tonnage is due to the fuel needed to accelerate the ship from low Earth orbit to escape velocity, and this may not differ between Mars and closer sites, such as the moon. Second, the time it takes to transport settlers. A colonization program will be efficient only if each transport ship is designed to make multiple trips back and forth.
In that case, transporting 10, people to Mars the minimum number needed for healthy genetic diversity requires voyages from Earth, while 4, voyages would be needed to reach the 80, colonist milestone.
Certainly, the advent of advanced propulsion technologies, shrinking the travel time between Earth and Mars from a year or so down to weeks would change these considerations, but right now the various Mars colonization proposals at least the developed ones are based on the old-fashioned chemical engines that have sent the current MAVEN probe toward Mars at turtle speed. A two-year round trip time and a fleet of 25 ships transport ships gives us 50 years to relocate 10, people, and years for 80, people.
Doing this, with the same type of program 25 ships each carrying 20 people , we get the first 10, to the moon in less than six months, and the first 80, in less than four years. And, finally, being closer would help with ongoing rapid access to and from Earth. But getting to that point could take some time, and at the beginning some colonists might need to be evacuated. There should be a growing medical capability on the colony, but initially cases of very serious illness and certain injuries might be better handled on Earth.
This would not be an option if the travel time were measured in months, or even weeks. And what if there were a planetary disaster on Earth in the early decades of the colony? From a location close to Earth, the colony might actually be able to provide some help.
A colony on the moon, on the other hand, would be within easy reach. Like Mars, the moon has caverns and caves that can be sealed for paraterraforming, along with craters that can be enclosed with pressure domes.
Science fiction has long dreamed of turning Mars into a second Earth, a place where humans could live without having to put on a space suit. The easiest way to do that would be to use carbon dioxide already on Mars to create a new atmosphere, but now researchers say that is impossible.
Terraforming Mars to make its surface habitable for Earth life would involve raising both its temperature and pressure by adding an atmosphere made of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The only ones present on Mars in any significant amounts are carbon dioxide and water vapour, both of which are currently frozen. The fundamental question is, is there enough stuff? Once upon a time, the idea of turning Mars into Earth 2.
But in , Mars is very much on the agenda. But as scientists work toward blastoff, the concept of terraforming will most likely be a case of "failure to launch.
Because the atmosphere is so thin Earth's is more than times denser there's not much shielding from radiation. These conditions pose more than a few problems if humans are planning an extended stay. Terraforming, broadly speaking, would address the creation of a thicker atmosphere and an increase in atmospheric pressure.
Getting even more ambitious, it would allow for breathable air. Maybe one day, Martian farmers could work in their shirt sleeves tending to whatever vegetation they've planted in a soil rich with microbes. Mars could be self-reliant for essentials like food and water. Who doesn't love some economic growth? There's a solid pile of ideas around terraforming Mars, and they all sound pretty wild. Mostly, they have to do with getting a lot of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, releasing it from the planet's ice and soil.
In , researchers Robert Zubrin and Chris McKay wrote a paper analyzing theories for terraforming the red planet.
0コメント