Terraforming Mars, The Noble Experiment?

Space Daily ^ | July 13, 2004 | Interview w/Robert Zubrin

[RockinRight]

Mars Society founder, Robert Zubrin, talks about how to terraform the red planet. His engineer's eye reveals his robust plans for not just getting to a new home, but also how to build one from scratch. As a former Martin-Marietta aerospace engineer, prolific author and founder of the non-profit Mars Society (1998), Robert Zubrin is regarded as the driving force behind the proposed Mars Direct mission to reduce the cost and complexity of interplanetary travel.

The flight plan calls for a return journey fueled by rocket propellant harvested in situ, from the martian atmosphere itself.

As described in Zubrin's book, The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet, the Mars Direct concept eventually became a cornerstone of a frugal 'living off the land' approach to travel in NASA's Design Reference Mission.

The Design Reference Mission (DRM) covers Earth launch to Mars landing, Mars cruise to Mars launch, and Earth return. The mission entails sending cargo ahead, docking the crew at the space station, then meeting up with the stashed supplies once on Mars.

"For our generation and many that will follow, Mars is the New World," writes Zubrin.

The New York Times Book Review (Dennis Overbye) indicated how such an outline initially was greeted as breaking conventional wisdom about martian mission plans:

"Part history, part call to arms, part technical manual, part wishful thinking, The Case for Mars ... lays out an ingenious plan. ......one of the most provocative and hopeful documents I have read about the space program in 20 years."

The Mars Society continues to grow across many countries with thousands of members interested in space advocacy, particularly how best to encourage the exploration and settlement of Mars.

Notable among the Society's members are science-fiction author, Greg Benford, and Academy Award winning director, James Cameron.

Astrobiology Magazine had the opportunity to talk with Robert Zubrin about the possibilities for terraforming Mars.

Astrobiology Magazine (AM): First off, should Mars be terraformed?

Robert Zubrin (RZ): Yes.

AM: Does Mars contain all of the elements needed to make the planet habitable, or will we have to import gases, chemicals, etc., from elsewhere?

If so, then will Mars always need constant inputs to achieve habitability, or do you think that given enough inputs Mars would reach a tipping point and planetary processes would create a self-sustaining feed-back loop?

RZ: It appears that Mars does have all the elements needed for terraforming. The one outstanding question is nitrogen, whose inventory remains unknown.

However theory suggests that Mars should have had an initial supply of nitrogen comparable to the Earth, and it seems likely that much of this is still there.

AM: How long will terraforming take? When you envision a terraformed Mars, what do you see?

RZ: If one considers the problem of terraforming Mars from the point of view of current technology, the scenario looks like this:

1. A century to settle Mars and create a substantial local industrial capability and population.

2. A half century producing fluorocarbon gases (like CF4) to warm the planet by ~10 C.

3. A half century for CO2 to outgas from the soil under the impetus of the fluorocarbon gases, thickening the atmosphere to 0.2 to 0.3 bar, and raising the planetary temperature a further 40 C.

This will cause water to melt out of the permafrost, and rivers to flow and rain to fall. Radiation doses on the surface will also be greatly reduced.

Under these conditions, with active human help, first photosynthetic microbes and then ever more complex plants could be spread over the planet, as they would be able to grow in the open.

Humans on Mars in this stage would no longer need pressure suits, just oxygen masks, and very large domed cities could be built, as the domes would no longer need to contain pressure greater than the outside environment.

4. Over a period of about a thousand years, human-disseminated and harvested plants would be able to put ~150 mbar (millibars) of oxygen in the Martian atmosphere. Once this occurs, humans and other animals will be able to live on Mars in the open, and the world will become fully alive.

That's the scenario, using current technological approaches. However technology is advancing, and 23rd Century humans will not conduct their projects using 21st Century means. They will use 23rd Century means and accomplish the job much faster than anyone today can suppose.

So if someone in the 24th Century, living on a fully terraformed Mars, should discover this interview, I believe that she will view it in much the same way as we today look at Jules Verne's lunar mission design.

We today look at Verne's ideas and say "Amazing, a man living a hundred years before Apollo foresaw it - and not only that- launched his crew of three from Florida, and returned them in a capsule landing in the Pacific Ocean where they were picked up by a US warship, all as things actually happened.

But launching people with heavy artillery - how 19th Century can you get?"

So our 24th Century Martian historian studying this interview will smile and say; "Incredible. Here are people 300 years ago talking about terraforming Mars. But doing it with fluorocarbon gases and green plants -how 20th century can you get?"

AM: Who should the first human colonists to Mars be and how should they be chosen? Since Martian gravity is one-third of Earth's, wouldn't bone and muscle loss, along with radiation, make colonization a one-way journey? What are the implications of what, from an Earth-perspective, is exile?

RZ: Life is a one-way trip, and we are all permanently exiled from our past. In that sense Mars colonists, and all colonists, are no different from anyone else. It is just more apparent in their case, as in addition to leaving behind the time of their past, they also leave behind the place.

But in so doing, they gain the opportunity to create a world where none existed before, and thus gain a form of immortality that is denied to those who are content to accept the world they are born in.

AM: If there's life on Mars, how do we balance the Martian right to life with the human impulse to explore and extend our borders?

RZ: The basis of ethics needs to be of benefit to humanity. If there is life on Mars, it is microbial, and its interests can in no way be considered as commensurate with human interests. Those who argue otherwise strike a fashionable pose, but deny their arguments every day through their actions.

If bacterial interests trump human interests, then mouthwash should be banned, chlorination of water supplies should be banned, and antibiotics should be banned. If bacterial interests trump human interests, then Albert Schweitzer and Louis Pasteur should be denounced for crimes against bacteria.

Now, in saying that ethics must be based in human benefit, we need not deny that preserving valuable environments in important.

It is important to save the amazon rain forest, for example, because a world without an amazon rain forest would be a poorer inheritance for our descendants than one with one, and the degree of the impoverishment exceeds whatever value might be obtained in the short term from slash and burn agriculture.

However, in the case of Mars, the calculation votes the other way, as a terraformed Mars, filled with life, cities, universities, used book stores, and yes, rain forests, would be a vastly richer gift to posterity than the current barren Red Planet.

Clearly, just as anyone who proposed transforming the current Earth into a place like Mars would be considered mad, so those who, given the choice, would keep Mars dead rather than make it a place as wonderful as the Earth must have their sanity doubted.

There remains only the question of science. Surely we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to study native Martian life before we terraform the place.

We surely will. Terraforming Mars will be a long term project, and should native Martian microbes exist, there will be ample opportunity to study it before terraforming takes place. There will also be opportunity to study how it adapts to warmer, wetter conditions and the presence of terrestrial microbes after terraforming takes place.

Furthermore, if Mars actually is terraformed, there will be much more people on Mars to study every aspect of Mars, including both its native and immigrant life. So in fact, our knowledge of Martian biota will be increased by terraforming, not decreased.

AM: Humans sent to live on Mars will bring with them ideas on how to govern themselves, rules of conduct for living in society, economic motivations, and personality conflicts.

How should the colonization of Mars be managed, and how should Mars be governed? Should the colonization of Mars be a cooperative effort among every nation, or should only those that financial contribute be in charge of the operation?

RZ: The Founding Fathers of the United States called our infant republic a "Noble Experiment," a place where the grand liberal ideas of the Enlightenment could be given a run, and the idea of a government based on the rights on man could be tested to see if it could succeed in practice.

Their Noble Experiment did succeed, and as a result became the model for a new and better form of human social organization worldwide.

Mars can, should, and will be a place for numerous new Noble Experiments. The well of human social thought has not yet run dry, nor do I believe that we have yet discovered the ultimate and most humanistic form of society possible.

In the 22nd Century, as in the 18th, there will always be people who think they have discovered a better way, and need a place to go where the rules haven't been written yet so they can give their ideas a try. For these, the Martian frontier will beckon.

Many of their ideas will prove impractical, and their colonies will fail. But some of those who really have a better idea will succeed, and in doing so, light the way forward for all humanity.

So, to answer your question, I say that the colonization of Mars should not be managed at all, but be done through the joyful chaos of human freedom.

AM: Taking a leap into the future, let's assume the technology, biology, sociology, and politics have all combined to create a unique sub-race of humanity on Mars. Generations of human beings have now been born, grown, bred and died on Mars. Who are these Martians?

RZ: In 1893, the great historian Frederick Jackson Turner wrote:

"To the frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics. That coarseness of strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance that comes from freedom - these are the traits of the frontier."

I think that says it all. The pioneers of the Martian frontier will be the Americans of the future.

[NoClones]

Yes, it would take time to bleed off. But the trouble is that Mars just doesn't have the mass & is very far from the sun.

The idea of moving Venus is something that could have better long term possibilities but seems to be beyond our present technology.

The terraforming probably will be attempted, but I think the real future of Mankind is beyond the solar system. That will take the ability to do long-term projects lasting centuries or more. But then terraforming as described in the article, is a long-term project.

Great article!

[RightWhale]

July 13 article? Zubrin can take a vacation. He has earned it.

[fella]

With little hard knowledge of what's there, it just seems a little silly to be making detailed plans at this point in time.

[orionblamblam]

> How would Venusians handle agriculture?

Hydroponics. Quite possible on the *outside* of the colony. CO2 atmosphere and all... plus *abundant* sunlight. Might have a problem with plant mass increasing too fast.

> Venus, with her suspended mid-air cities, becomes the "blue" planet (the liberals).

Hardly. You'll have blimps and whatnot setting off on their own all the time.

> Mars, with its entrepreneurial, agriculturally friendly society...

There will be little difference. For a very, very long time, Martian agricutlure will take place in conditions much akin to Venusian ag... very controlled.

> Mars... becomes the "red" (conservative) planet!

Unlikely. At least not as we know it. Colonists will still be highly dependant upon "the social order" for mere survival. True freedom won't occur until a family can jsut decide to head off for the Kuiper belt or some such and homestead a comet.

[orionblamblam]

> Zubrin can take a vacation.

Heh. Trust me, he does. At least as of a few years ago, he was out of the office almost as much as in, flying around the world giving speeches and whatnot. Free travel and adulation...

That might have all slowed down now that most of the space advocates have had enough of him...


Do not confuse the message with the messenger.

[orionblamblam]

> Tho' I'm not sure I'd want to focus my efforts on a place where man would always have to live in an artificial environment.

You live in a house or an apartment, do you not? Or do you sleep out under the stars? Man has *always* lived in artificial environments.

[RightWhale]

Go ahead and develop Mars. I don't see the profit in that. For one thing there are no private property rights on Mars. For another, there is no economic incentive. And, furthermore, it seems like a low goal for someone who wants to develop outer space.

[elephantman96]

I think we should go to Mars, and I like the ideas presented to do so, such as offering funds to a commercial enterprise that takes up the effort. For example sending a crew of 5 to Mars and returning them and performing a variety of experiments. If you succeed you bet X billion dollars. Think of it as a glorified X prize, and think of what entrepreneurs could do with a few billion $'s. Look at Burt Rutan, he built SpaceShip One and its carrier jet and ran the entire program on $20 million. NASA should not be in the job of running such a program, but offering up the scientific research ideas, etc. Entrepreneurs can do space much more efficiently if they had the dollars to do so. In fact I think that is one of the greatest things Burt Rutan has contributed to the space race, he has demonstrated to commercial interests that 1) small business can play in the same arena of space with the big boys, and 2) there can be economic benefits to space exploration.

[orionblamblam]

>there are no private property rights on Mars

Not until someone gets there who can hold his property, no.

> it seems like a low goal for someone who wants to develop outer space.

It is *a* goal. There is no end-goal.

Complaints about various locations in space always amuse me. The Marsoids who go ape at the suggestion of lunar missions, for instance.

[DannyTN]

"if later they turn lefty, we float them off into space ..."

No we convince the leftists that due to global warming THEY must migrate to Mars as their only hope. We keep earth.

[RightWhale]

Nobody in the private sector is going to go to Mars without preexisting private property rights. There is no economic incentive to doing so. The public sector may send an expedition, but they won't set up a permanent colony except an Antarctica type science station.

[orionblamblam]

> Nobody in the private sector is going to go to Mars without preexisting private property rights.

As always, your rights to your property only exist insofar as you can keep someone from taking that property from you. Whether or not there's an Outer Space Treaty that would pretend to control such things is irrelevant.

In any event, the rules for Mars are the same as they are for asteroids, comets or even a prime spot in orbit.

[RightWhale]

your rights to your property only exist insofar as you can keep someone from taking that property from you

You can't. Only the state can do that.

[Lazamataz]

2. A half century producing fluorocarbon gases (like CF4) to warm the planet by ~10 C.

FINALLY!!!

A use for all those 1970's-era aerosol cans.

[trenton1776]

Sorry to rain on these "space dreams" parade, but I've been a space skeptic for quite a while. If there is a ID God, his first two commandments would be 1. Thou Shalt Not Leave the Earth 2. Thou Shalt Not Travel Fast. We can infer these commandments simply from the way the universe is made.

The first is due to the incredible difficulty of lifting anything off our planet. We all know that it can be done with gigantic bottle rockets, but the cost and danger are really great and only economically useful for lifting things such as glorified radios, cameras and weapons. All useful things I guess, but really, lifting more and different "things" a few hundred or thousand miles has already gotten old. Remember the microgravity "factories" we were going to have?

A google search of "space spinoffs" will find dozens of great sounding things we've gained from our trips straight up - except that they really have nothing to do with space. They are almost all things that came from trying to crack some engineering problem addresses by NASA. Things like "fireproof clothing" are useful, sure, but we could have lots more of them by forgetting about a wild ride in space and giving half the NASA budget to the new National Invention Bureau.

As for commandment number 2 - if our ID God wanted us to flit around the universe, he wouldn't have made it so big and designed it so that really high speeds can't be achieved. Just traveling to Mars (which is a paltry 40,000,000 miles away at its closest) is projected to take at least 2 years. Now think about a trip to the stars - it'll take decades or, more likely, centuries.

Sure, we MAY be able to populate far away places, but by the time they get there, get themselves established and decide to come home to enjoy a Thanksgiving dinner on their home world, who knows what they might be like? After a few thousand years of developing on an alien world with no contact with Earth at all, they might just be our worst nightmare - an invading force of humans totally unlike the ones on Earth. That is, of course, if any survive the trip.

The challenges presented by the two commandments are well known and yet most folks seem to think they can be overcome by some technological or scientific breakthrough that may appear in the future. Or that humans may overcome them by simple force of will - if we want to something bad enough, and are willing to spend enough capital and lives, we'll engineer a solution. This is the hope with something far out like terraforming Mars. Maybe we'll have the ability and the will - but likely not when the real costs are soberly considered.

Which brings us to Burt Ratan who is one of my favorite examples of what I call "space blindness". I don't know if he is the blind one or are those who believe the flight of SpaceShipOne heralds the beginning of some new space age. His ship managed to take off from a common airplane, burn its engine for 80 seconds and reach the lofty altitude of 66+ miles. It's about as historically impressive as gazing in wonder at someone who manages to travel all the way from New York to Philadelphia.

It would be impressive if it might lead to some great breakthrough, but as far as I can tell it is amazing simply because it was relatively cheap.

But even that is misleading since the cost was still very high. Now imagine him taking the next step and going a couple hundred miles into orbit. The cost will be many times what it was. It MAY still be cheaper than NASA, but it won't be cheap. And as far as I can tell, that's about it. His overall approach may be more efficient, but it really isn't any different from NASA.

Like all commandments, we are free to break our two space commandments, but the price is very high.

[RightWhale]

The third law is that a business needs an economic justification.

[orionblamblam]

> You can't. Only the state can do that.

Horsepuckey. That's nto true today, here, now.

Somebody breaks into my house to steal my cat, it won't be the State that prevents it. It'll be me. Or maybe my cat. The State's job would be to hunt the bastich down and punish him, and discourage similar acts by that punishment. But the Gubmint does not station cops outside my door. That's why I have a Tommygun. (BUAHAHAHAHAAAA!)

Similarly, if Microsoft starts a Mars base and the Chinese want to take it, the US gubmint won't be able to do diddly, whether or not there's a treaty.

[orionblamblam]

> It's about as historically impressive as gazing in wonder at someone who manages to travel all the way from New York to Philadelphia.

And tell me... how impressive would travelling from New York to Philly in just a few hours have been to the people who *founded* those cities?

I'm sure there were some similarly blindered people back then who thought that their Invisible Buddy In The Sky had commandments about not leaving town beacue of the difficulty and time in getting from one city to the next.

> Like all commandments, we are free to break our two space commandments, but the price is very high.

Indeed. We lose the myths of the past that tell us that some moldy imaginary god or other has commandments that say that we shouldn't go to new places.

[Modernman]

Move Venus into the spot exactly opposite the sun from the Earth, so that it is never visible (always on the other side of the sun). This creates a climatic advantage as it is the exact same distance from the sun as the Earth.

Hmm.... once we reach the point, as a civilization, where we can move planets, I doubt we'll really need to, unless we need material for a Dyson sphere or a ringworld.

[FierceDraka]

Can we do it? Absolutely. The question is whether or not we have the will to make a thousand year committment to the project.

Should we do it? If we want to ensure our long-term survival as a technological civilization, I would say so. It's simple common sense to not keep all of one's eggs in one basket, which is the case with humanity confined to one catastrophe-prone planet. A second human world would provide an "insurance policy" that our advanced civilization would survive even if Earth experienced a super-volcano eruption, an asteroid strike, a catastrophic solar flare, etc.

Anti-God? Unethical? Hardly. From a religious standpoint, I believe a very strong case could be made that we would be expanding and spreading the Creation beyond Earth, to the greater glory of the Kingdom.

Of course, there would be the usual cast of malcontents screaming about "despoiling" Mars by terraforming it. They could be shut down by telling them that the technologies developed from the Mars project would be applicable to reversing desertification and deforestation on Earth.

I could go on and on for hours on this topic, but I'll spare you that.

;-D