On the (Im)Possibility of Terraforming Mars

The rather breathless reportage that terraforming Mars isn’t possible with current technology – which was arguably true prior to the scientific study in question anyway – is dependent on a particular terraforming concept. Work in the early 1990s by Chris McKay and Robert Zubrin proposed that Mars could be terraformed by liberating supposedly vast amounts of carbon dioxide locked away in the crust and polar caps. To do so would require making several hundred gigawatt nuclear reactors powering fluorocarbon (“super greenhouse gases”) factories on Mars to push the surface temperature a bit away from its present day cold trap more towards a self-warming runaway of CO2 and eventually water vapour. Alternatively the polar caps could be vaporised by a linear nuclear explosion or comets and asteroids dropped onto it. However *none* of those are really present-day options. Thus the article can be called “fake news” (to coin a phrase.) It’s a good scientific study, but it’s a premature headline grabber about terraforming.

Before we start moving asteroids, what does terraforming Mars really mean? Mars lacks several things to make it truly “Earth-like” – chiefly sufficient mass for Earth-like gravity, sufficient water for Earth-like oceans, sufficient oxygen to breathe, sufficient magnetic field and sufficient energy input by the Sun. Traditional terraforming tries to get a two-for-one by increasing a greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide) to warm the planet enough for liquid water on the surface and maybe some terrestrial plant life. Even though plants use carbon dioxide for making sugar to store solar energy in chemical bonds, they also need oxygen to use that sugar (i.e. respire) and too much CO2 inhibits growth in most species. Assuming lots of genetic engineering, it was hoped we might convert Mars, after millennia, to an oxygen-rich atmosphere somewhat like Earth’s.

If we can ignore the gravity issue (we could rotate cities to make our own if we really need it) and make our own magnetic field (big superconductor ring or rings), then what Mars really needs is oxygen and sunlight. Rather than CO2 to warm the planet indirectly – and not very efficiently – what if we increase the available sunlight?

Present day Mars has about 6 millibars of CO2 in its atmosphere, while Earth has about 0.4 millibars. Also the lower gravity on Mars means the column mass is equivalent to 16 millibars worth on Earth. Thus if Mars received as much sunlight as Earth, it’d be *too hot* from its CO2 greenhouse effect. If we increased the available sunlight by ~50%, then it should be about right. If we imagine an annular mirror suspended above Mars, directing light down onto the surface, just how big would it need to be? Its effective area should be a minimum 50% that of Mars, but naturally it needs to be bigger than Mars. Mars presents to the Sun a disk that’s about 4,000 km in radius. The annular mirror needs at least a Mars sized hole – if it’s close to Mars – and then sufficient width to match 50% the area of Mars. Or about 900 kilometres wide and an average radius of about 4,500 km. Immense, but it doesn’t have to be very heavy. However such a structure would ruin the night-sky.

A “mirror-lens” could be parked at the Mars-Sun L-1 point and use solar radiation pressure to help keep itself in place, directing extra sunlight towards the planet, its mirror image making the Sun larger as seen from the surface. In the early stages, the Soletta as such mirrors are called, can be closer to the planet and focus its light into an intense pyrolysis beam to separate oxygen from the metal oxides in the crust directly. No mucking about with plants for millennia required. I’ve calculated in a prior blog-post elsewhere that a 50 petawatt (i.e. 50,000 trillion watt) beam is sufficient to give Mars an oxygen atmosphere in about 6 years. Mars receives 30 petawatts from the Sun, so our “50% Soletta” gives us 15 petawatts to blast oxygen out of the crust with, taking about 20 years. Merely releasing more carbon dioxide, for plants to then use at 0.1% efficiency, is much slower by comparison.

Just how massive is that Soletta? Imagine we can make reflective multi-layer graphene sheets with a surface mass density of 1 gram per square metre (copy paper is 80 grams per square metre, so it’s not even that challenging.) The total minimum area needed is 25 trillion square metres, therefore the mass is 25 billion kilograms or 25 million tons. While graphene is still uber expensive to make, it’s basically carbon, which is uber-cheap. Of course it won’t be shipped from Earth. Carbonaceous asteroids are typically ~5% carbon, so one just 1 km across is sufficient for the job. There are thousands of those in the asteroid belt and near earth asteroids. For comparsion, a 1 gigawatt coal-fired power station uses about 3 million tons of carbon per year, so 25 million tons isn’t really that much carbon.

4 Replies to “On the (Im)Possibility of Terraforming Mars”

  1. So whats your problem with NASA study? Most of the “terraforming is possible” material on the internet is click bait. People don’t do any calculations and just want to believe in something. Do you performed calculations about magnetic field required to protect Mars atmosphere? How much metall you need and how much you need to lay down on the surface and how much electricity you need, what are the losses, what is the ammount of work required to lay that all down and regularly repair? Or accounted for methane and other gasses that can get released from the soil if we ever heat it up? Or what about climatic modes that the atmosphere can get plunged into if we do something wrong? What if we release some gas that will be even more deadly to plants and will cool things even more? You release the gas from the ground and it creates even more sizable icecaps or falls like snow on the surface reflecting the sunlight. What about the storms? Eccentricity of Mars orbit? What if there are so much chemicals in there that if we ever release them the atmosphere would be poisonous? perchlorates man, you don’t want to grow there or breathe it. If it ever gets into water or rain, you don’t want to drink it either. You won’t get lushy blue mars, you would get muddy stinky brown poisonous rivers mars at best.

    The questions mount and people don’t have answers. Because you don’t want to think, you just want fantasies. The real answer should be that – we don’t know untill we research Mars. We can’t even reverse changes in Earth climate change even though we think we know well about this planet

    But you all want to change the climate on the planet we don’t know nothing about. Whats under the 1 meter of Martian soil? Why it doesn’t have magnetic field? Don’t know. Ridiculous. If you are such geniuses, how about you make a mirror in Earth orbit first and block or reflect some light on our own planet? No can’t do. We never been able to make 1 project work longer than 100 years, and millenia long progect you expect as real? ha, dream on, some Obama will come and slush it like Constelation program because we need to feed some poor children in Africa or Indonesia in the future. Thats would be the real reason we can’t do it, because humans are too political to do anything long enough, and our decisions can’t last long because our culture is fluid. Now tell that to idiots who claim we can and SHOULD build Dyson spheres in the Solar system even though it would take even longer. And they think that aliens SHOULD do that, as if they also should be some freaks that can build for 1000000 of years one progect. Man, you really should disconnect from those things, because they disconnect you from reality. They all nod to each other never disagree with each other creating this bubble where they don’t see things clear.

    1. Of course all those factors would need to be researched in situ. Why else would we go to Mars, but to find out and work from there. My basic outline is just that – a basic outline. It’s not the final solution. It’s not even close. But it’s an outline of the possible. “Disconnect from reality” – dude, reality is the status quo, and the point is how to go from that to where you want to be. The plan to reshape Mars will be drafted and redrafted a hundred times before it actually happens, as our knowledge expands.

      But the perchlorates thing is overstated, once water is available. And the repair work on a Martian magnetic field… seriously? We have probably ~100,000 km of undersea cable criss-crossing the oceans and goodness knows how much rail, road, pipe-lines, power-lines etc etc, and no one claims “it’s all too hard. Can’t be done.” Engineering is about finding solutions to the problems you can imagine, and solutions to the problems that crop up once your initial solutions are in place. Moaning and wailing about what possibly *might* bite us on the ass is just asking for excuses to say “fuck it. Not going to try.” As a species we do that really well, but some of us think “fuck it. Maybe we should try.”

    1. As nice as that would be, we don’t even have a proper theory of how we might go FTL. Warp-drives, wormholes and what-not all hinge on purely mathematical concepts that as yet have no laboratory or astrophysical evidence. That might change if we ‘see’ natural wormholes in deep space – there are several studies on that very possibility – but there’s presently no direct evidence.

      Even if we do there’s no guarantee that we’ll find a planet we can directly colonize. Not saying they don’t exist – but presently there’s a lot of known exoplanets and a tiny fraction are in the right orbits with roughly the right sizes. But they could *all* be as Earth-like as Venus or Mars. Doesn’t take much to make a planet humans can’t live on. Too much CO2, too much H2S, too much CO, too much… End of the Permian Period there was a mass extinction probably via H2S poisoning produced by anaerobic bacteria. We would drop dead if we were transported there. More than 50% of Earth’s history we couldn’t even breathe the atmosphere – not enough O2. The available amount varied quite dramatically. Even during the early dinosaur days, when our mammalian ancestors were evolving, the percentage of O2 was probably too low for humans. The point is not that we can’t find suitable planets to colonise or the means to get there, but right here in the Solar System is another planet we can inhabit using technology that will then allow us to inhabit an immense range of worlds. And help us repair the damage we’ve done to the one planet we know we can inhabit right now – Earth. The means that would make possible the terraforming of Mars or Venus or the Moon would also allow us to fix the damage we’ve done here. That’s the importance of the theoretical exercise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *