Do we need three "artist's conceptions" of what a terraformed Mars might look like? I've removed the top one, as it's the widest and most obtrusive. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
is there a map of Mars, like the one of Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png
134.169.13.61 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we really ned 2 distinct articles, namely Teraforming of Mars and Colonization of Mars? It's not like colonization is likely to happen without teraforming or parateraforming.
The 2 seem rather duplicative.
Mars didn't lose its atmosphere because it had less gravity, it lost its magnetosphere and its atmosphere had no protection from the sun. 3 billion years ago venus, earth and mars were probably all very similar. Add a magnetic field and it will be easier to terraform mars. However, we can never colonize mars or terraform it. T.Neo 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please give more information on how to add a magnetic field to mars by using only what human is capable of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.94.187 ( talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read somewhere (Possibly an older version of this article) that a nuclear fusion powered electromagnet at each pole would generate a sufficient magnetic feild. With future advances in power generation and superconductors, I think this is possible. Anyway, building a huge magnet would be childs play compared to importing buffer gas from Venus or Titan. P.S. I take back my earlier comment: Mars can be colonized and could possibly be terrraformed. T.Neo ( talk contribs review me ) 08:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a good name for a band...
But seriously -- is the line about adding mass to Mars by crashing small asteroids into it worth keeping? If I got my math right, tossing the entire asteroid belt onto Mars would increase its mass a bit over 1/2%! While giving more mass to the planet would make it more earth-like, I think that notion is more science fiction than good sense. Dismalscholar ( talk) 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Pinkfloyd2050 ( talk) 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Added a mini-discussion in the ":Building the atmosphere, water content" section on the dwarf Planet Ceres as a water source, etc. --Centromere ( talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Centromere
As of 3 years ago on Patrick's astronomy page I've hear about when Earth becomes uninhabitable about 2 or 3 Gyrs years from now, when our solar system slowly heats up when Earth becomes a wasteland of greenhouse effect, almost like Venus today, Mars can gradually heat up. I remeber on Patrick's website they mention about Mars may eventually release CO2 and slowly get wetter and warmer. Mars can be a new home when Earth becomes a hell. My guess is in 2 to 3 Gyrs Venus and Earth will be totally identical sister greenhouse effect. Their surface is almost identical. By then Mars on the other hand will be much like Earth today. Its frozen iron oxide and CO2 will gradually sublimate, look much greener and much like Earth today. Freewayguy789194 ( Any questions? - My updates) 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the image on the main page. How is this not a future prediction of events uncertain, I.e. WP:CRYSTAL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.101 ( talk) 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, the article seems to describe a very unprecise recipe for terraforming Mars, such as being the one and only true recipe. I think that borders to OR, and otherwise makes the article boring and unbelievable. I think it instead should treat the various proposals separately, all the time being precise in details from the sources. If a proposal is "failed" because building on obsolete theories, such as Sagan's painting the poles black, well and fine, then we write about the theory and explain that it is failed. Nobody knows the truth (yet) about how to terraform Mars, but that's not a trouble for Wikipedia, we just describe all theories, and say that nobody knows what's right or what's wrong. The current text can stand as a contextual basis: most theories require heat, some theories require greenhouse gasses, many theories believe that ammonia is the greenhouse solution of choice, others don't treat the exact choice of greenhouse gas, or maybe greenhouse at all. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"a significant challenge is that water is present in trace amounts, and only in the atmosphere." This is contradicted in the main Mars article where it is suggested there are vast amounts of frozen water at the poles and as permafrost down to 60degrees latitudes.It is also theorised that there may be vast amounts of ice at depth in the crust. ````frglee 25/8/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected this article re the lack of water on Mars which is demonstrably untrue.It exists in vast amounts as ice just below the surface etc. and the recent drillings by the Mars landers confirms this photographically where a revealed sample of ice sublimated within a few hours to water vapour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not balanced. We have 10 Oxygen's on one side and 12 on the other. Someone sort this out or get rid of it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.200.169 ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I'm confused... T.Neo ( talk contribs review me ) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know this article was recently featured on Digg's front page, which will likely increase the traffic and edits to it. — ThreeDee912( talk/ contribs) 04:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OH FUC-- IT'S FRONT PAGE NEWS
yeah.... prepare for shitflood load of vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.110.211 ( talk) 23:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
"Alternately, any attempt to perturb the orbit of Ceres in order to add it whole to Mars (similar to the strategy of using a gravitational tractor for asteroid deflection[7]), thus increasing Mars' mass by admittedly a tiny fraction but adding a great deal of heat (no small, cosmic body Ceres, see below), must account for any resultant perturbation of the martian orbit and account for prolonged geological tumult, such as reestablishment of hydrostatic equilibrium, that would result from even the softest of impacts."
The above quotation is taken from the article where it talks about the possible sources of water for terraforming Mars. I do realise the above makes sense, and I can just about understand what is being said, but it seems to have been written more to confuse rather than explain anything. It reads like something straight out of a dull university textbook, written by some pompous lecturer for his captive audience, his long-suffering students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 ( talk) 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a section on the estimated time it would take to do something such as this, or at least theories on when this could start taking place? If not, does anyone know when/if and some sources? I'm interested in this kind of thing. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 02:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There's much more going on here than just original research. This article, as it stands, does not belong in an encyclopedia at all, certainly not without some kind of strong disclaimer regarding its extremely speculative nature.
In fact, the article really should be rewritten from the perspective of describing the ways in which people (and here I mean notable people writing stuff that bills itself as non-fiction) have speculated about the topic. To my way of thinking, such an article would belong in Wikipedia, because there is little doubt in my mind that a lot of notable people have speculated in print on this subject, so documenting that seems appropriate.
It is not, however, appropriate for an encyclopedia to itself engage in the speculation. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. As it stands, the article is entirely without any redeeming encyclopedic value. If any serious space agency (e.g., NASA or its equivalent in other countries) has any actual plans to attempt something like this, then that should be mentioned in the article, and if not, then the whole thing (as written) is pretty much just pure speculative science fiction.
I don't think the article should be deleted, though. I think it should be rewritten to document notable speculation that has been written elsewhere, without engaging in speculation directly.
One of the things that's fundamentally wrong about the article is that it follows an outline structured around a specific set of hypothetical steps, presumably those envisioned by the author(s) of the article. This is wholly inappropriate. There are various ways the article might reasonably be structured (chronologically, noting how ideas about the terraforming of Mars have changed over time, seems obvious; alternately, there could be sections covering different but mutually contemporary schools of thought on the matter), but the current arrangement is not suitable.
-- Jonadab the Unsightly One, 2007 Nov 14.
I've lifted a couple of sections onto my clipboard to struggle with. Given my unpredictable opportunities to hit this, though, don't count on anything soon. Dismalscholar ( talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Anwer to first post : exactly, terraforming of Mars is impossible due to lack of mass. Mars is only 1/10th of Earth's mass. There is a reason why there's no longer any liquid water on Mars today : liquid water is intrinsically unstable on Mars and quickly dissipates into space. It's the same reason why the martian atmosphere is so thin, it's the only amount of atmosphere this small planet can hold. Plus, living in the long term within under-gravity conditions like that (38% of Earth's gravity) will kill you, your body will become weak and fragile and over time it's hard structure (bones, etc) will end up collapsing on itself. This whole article is about an impossible daydream and nothing more.
Terraforming of Venus might be another matter though.
216.162.79.178 ( talk) 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Luc D.
I've tagged this article with {{originalresearch}} due to the citations needed on the processes involved in terraforming and methods that could be used. 1ne 05:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- That bottom assertion is just silly. There are a few "citation needed" tags in it presently which ought to go, because they're stuck to statements that are just conclusions from the prior discussion. OTOH, there are places where citations could be used that aren't tagged. It's hardly worth the effort, though, in much of the article because so many sections are just plain sloppy. Dismalscholar ( talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we need three "artist's conceptions" of what a terraformed Mars might look like? I've removed the top one, as it's the widest and most obtrusive. ▫ UrbaneLegend talk 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
is there a map of Mars, like the one of Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-World.png
134.169.13.61 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Do we really ned 2 distinct articles, namely Teraforming of Mars and Colonization of Mars? It's not like colonization is likely to happen without teraforming or parateraforming.
The 2 seem rather duplicative.
Mars didn't lose its atmosphere because it had less gravity, it lost its magnetosphere and its atmosphere had no protection from the sun. 3 billion years ago venus, earth and mars were probably all very similar. Add a magnetic field and it will be easier to terraform mars. However, we can never colonize mars or terraform it. T.Neo 10:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Please give more information on how to add a magnetic field to mars by using only what human is capable of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.94.187 ( talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read somewhere (Possibly an older version of this article) that a nuclear fusion powered electromagnet at each pole would generate a sufficient magnetic feild. With future advances in power generation and superconductors, I think this is possible. Anyway, building a huge magnet would be childs play compared to importing buffer gas from Venus or Titan. P.S. I take back my earlier comment: Mars can be colonized and could possibly be terrraformed. T.Neo ( talk contribs review me ) 08:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a good name for a band...
But seriously -- is the line about adding mass to Mars by crashing small asteroids into it worth keeping? If I got my math right, tossing the entire asteroid belt onto Mars would increase its mass a bit over 1/2%! While giving more mass to the planet would make it more earth-like, I think that notion is more science fiction than good sense. Dismalscholar ( talk) 10:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Pinkfloyd2050 ( talk) 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Added a mini-discussion in the ":Building the atmosphere, water content" section on the dwarf Planet Ceres as a water source, etc. --Centromere ( talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Centromere
As of 3 years ago on Patrick's astronomy page I've hear about when Earth becomes uninhabitable about 2 or 3 Gyrs years from now, when our solar system slowly heats up when Earth becomes a wasteland of greenhouse effect, almost like Venus today, Mars can gradually heat up. I remeber on Patrick's website they mention about Mars may eventually release CO2 and slowly get wetter and warmer. Mars can be a new home when Earth becomes a hell. My guess is in 2 to 3 Gyrs Venus and Earth will be totally identical sister greenhouse effect. Their surface is almost identical. By then Mars on the other hand will be much like Earth today. Its frozen iron oxide and CO2 will gradually sublimate, look much greener and much like Earth today. Freewayguy789194 ( Any questions? - My updates) 00:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the image on the main page. How is this not a future prediction of events uncertain, I.e. WP:CRYSTAL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.101 ( talk) 11:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, the article seems to describe a very unprecise recipe for terraforming Mars, such as being the one and only true recipe. I think that borders to OR, and otherwise makes the article boring and unbelievable. I think it instead should treat the various proposals separately, all the time being precise in details from the sources. If a proposal is "failed" because building on obsolete theories, such as Sagan's painting the poles black, well and fine, then we write about the theory and explain that it is failed. Nobody knows the truth (yet) about how to terraform Mars, but that's not a trouble for Wikipedia, we just describe all theories, and say that nobody knows what's right or what's wrong. The current text can stand as a contextual basis: most theories require heat, some theories require greenhouse gasses, many theories believe that ammonia is the greenhouse solution of choice, others don't treat the exact choice of greenhouse gas, or maybe greenhouse at all. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"a significant challenge is that water is present in trace amounts, and only in the atmosphere." This is contradicted in the main Mars article where it is suggested there are vast amounts of frozen water at the poles and as permafrost down to 60degrees latitudes.It is also theorised that there may be vast amounts of ice at depth in the crust. ````frglee 25/8/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected this article re the lack of water on Mars which is demonstrably untrue.It exists in vast amounts as ice just below the surface etc. and the recent drillings by the Mars landers confirms this photographically where a revealed sample of ice sublimated within a few hours to water vapour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frglee ( talk • contribs) 08:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not balanced. We have 10 Oxygen's on one side and 12 on the other. Someone sort this out or get rid of it completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.200.169 ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I'm confused... T.Neo ( talk contribs review me ) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just letting everyone know this article was recently featured on Digg's front page, which will likely increase the traffic and edits to it. — ThreeDee912( talk/ contribs) 04:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
OH FUC-- IT'S FRONT PAGE NEWS
yeah.... prepare for shitflood load of vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.110.211 ( talk) 23:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
"Alternately, any attempt to perturb the orbit of Ceres in order to add it whole to Mars (similar to the strategy of using a gravitational tractor for asteroid deflection[7]), thus increasing Mars' mass by admittedly a tiny fraction but adding a great deal of heat (no small, cosmic body Ceres, see below), must account for any resultant perturbation of the martian orbit and account for prolonged geological tumult, such as reestablishment of hydrostatic equilibrium, that would result from even the softest of impacts."
The above quotation is taken from the article where it talks about the possible sources of water for terraforming Mars. I do realise the above makes sense, and I can just about understand what is being said, but it seems to have been written more to confuse rather than explain anything. It reads like something straight out of a dull university textbook, written by some pompous lecturer for his captive audience, his long-suffering students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.61.125 ( talk) 23:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a section on the estimated time it would take to do something such as this, or at least theories on when this could start taking place? If not, does anyone know when/if and some sources? I'm interested in this kind of thing. 98.198.83.12 ( talk) 02:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There's much more going on here than just original research. This article, as it stands, does not belong in an encyclopedia at all, certainly not without some kind of strong disclaimer regarding its extremely speculative nature.
In fact, the article really should be rewritten from the perspective of describing the ways in which people (and here I mean notable people writing stuff that bills itself as non-fiction) have speculated about the topic. To my way of thinking, such an article would belong in Wikipedia, because there is little doubt in my mind that a lot of notable people have speculated in print on this subject, so documenting that seems appropriate.
It is not, however, appropriate for an encyclopedia to itself engage in the speculation. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. As it stands, the article is entirely without any redeeming encyclopedic value. If any serious space agency (e.g., NASA or its equivalent in other countries) has any actual plans to attempt something like this, then that should be mentioned in the article, and if not, then the whole thing (as written) is pretty much just pure speculative science fiction.
I don't think the article should be deleted, though. I think it should be rewritten to document notable speculation that has been written elsewhere, without engaging in speculation directly.
One of the things that's fundamentally wrong about the article is that it follows an outline structured around a specific set of hypothetical steps, presumably those envisioned by the author(s) of the article. This is wholly inappropriate. There are various ways the article might reasonably be structured (chronologically, noting how ideas about the terraforming of Mars have changed over time, seems obvious; alternately, there could be sections covering different but mutually contemporary schools of thought on the matter), but the current arrangement is not suitable.
-- Jonadab the Unsightly One, 2007 Nov 14.
I've lifted a couple of sections onto my clipboard to struggle with. Given my unpredictable opportunities to hit this, though, don't count on anything soon. Dismalscholar ( talk) 10:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Anwer to first post : exactly, terraforming of Mars is impossible due to lack of mass. Mars is only 1/10th of Earth's mass. There is a reason why there's no longer any liquid water on Mars today : liquid water is intrinsically unstable on Mars and quickly dissipates into space. It's the same reason why the martian atmosphere is so thin, it's the only amount of atmosphere this small planet can hold. Plus, living in the long term within under-gravity conditions like that (38% of Earth's gravity) will kill you, your body will become weak and fragile and over time it's hard structure (bones, etc) will end up collapsing on itself. This whole article is about an impossible daydream and nothing more.
Terraforming of Venus might be another matter though.
216.162.79.178 ( talk) 01:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Luc D.
I've tagged this article with {{originalresearch}} due to the citations needed on the processes involved in terraforming and methods that could be used. 1ne 05:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- That bottom assertion is just silly. There are a few "citation needed" tags in it presently which ought to go, because they're stuck to statements that are just conclusions from the prior discussion. OTOH, there are places where citations could be used that aren't tagged. It's hardly worth the effort, though, in much of the article because so many sections are just plain sloppy. Dismalscholar ( talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)