[codq]

Without tectonics, is terraforming Mars even possible as a long term solution? This "Mars colonization" strategy seems like a pipe dream, no?

[eru]

The lack of tectonics would only be a problem if you want your terraforming to be 'one and done'.

If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort, it's simple (but not easy). Eg you can use satellites to spin up an artificial magnetic field to shield against solar wind.

However, I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch (eg out of asteroids), than to go down another gravity well. You can spin them for artificial 'gravity'. And you can situate them close to earth where logistics of resupply and communication and trade are much more favourable.

Otherwise, Mercury is the planet to colonise, not Mars.

Mercury gets extremely hot in the sun, and extremely cold at night. So if you dig a bit under the surface it all evens out. Pick the right latitude, and you can get basically any average temperature you feel like, including a comfortable 20C.

(Otherwise, even on the surface it's easy to get comfy temperatures, if you bring retractable parasols. Just don't expect to stroll around outside the base.)

Mercury has the benefit compared to Mars that solar power is extremely plentiful.

[kulahan]

It's worth mentioning that one of the more sane ways to terraform a planet is to redirect specific comets to crash into the planet. It would be "free" in the sense that redirecting an orbit is already actively being studied by NASA for planetary defense reasons. To actually terraform a planet in this method would be unreasonably affordable compared to anything else I've ever heard.

edit: Plus, it's nice to split our eggs into multiple planetary baskets. And I suspect people would feel a bit happier living on the surface of a chilly Mars than to become mole people on Mercury, even if it is easier. Maybe summer and winter homes?

[JumpCrisscross]

> If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort

The Earth hasn't always been hospitale to humans, much less technological civilisation. Chances are, we'll have to do similar "maintenance" at home, too. (Easiest to grasp: deflecting asteroids.)

> I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch

This comes down to how biology works in zero and partial g. One of the most useful set of experiments we could be doing right now, in terms of colonisation, is putting lots of rats and whatnot in tiny space stations and letting their life cycles play out.

[zahlman]

> So if you dig a bit under the surface it all evens out. Pick the right latitude, and you can get basically any average temperature you feel like

It seems hard to believe that this would actually work, even though I understand why it should. Although you have to do the digging starting in extreme temperature conditions without an atmosphere.

[mixmastamyk]

The Moon has zones like you describe on Mercury, and is a lot closer to colonize. Lack of large magnetic field probably won’t matter as terraforming either is hopeless.

[RajT88]

That is some out of the box thinking!

I would say the key thing with Mercury is the ability to dig fast.

[Melatonic]

Seems like Mercury could be a good opportunity for automated drones and research

[SJC_Hacker]

Tectonics isn’t the issue

There would be little point in terraforming Mars. There’s plenty of places on Earth to terraform

[dismalaf]

The whole point of Mars (or any other second planet) is redundancy. If something happens to earth we have a backup plan, as a species.

[Lerc]

Are there? Most places on earth have an established environment. There are things living in some very hostile to human areas.

[pizzathyme]

Agree. But my understanding is the main idea is Mars is supposed to be a "backup" for humanity in the event of a very-low-probability catastrophic event on earth (total nuclear war, solar flare, meteorite collision).

In our lifetimes, unlikely. Over the next 1 million years? Maybe.

[ozb]

Heh, apparently ChatGPT gets touchy when you explore creative ways to make earth less inhabitable than Mars, especially around pathogens and grey goo

> content removed

> <red> This content may violate our terms of use or usage policies

[tomxor]

> There’s plenty of places on Earth to terraform

I'm going to steal this.

[dotnet00]

If we fuck up terraforming Mars, it's bad, but not ecological collapse level bad. On the other hand, we're already fucking up terraforming Earth.

[BlaDeKke]

Was it ever anything else then a dream?