Practical Considerations of Terraforming Mars

The concept of altering Mars’ environment so that it is habitable for humans, or terraforming, has been subject to a lot of speculative fiction and debate. The idea was first incorporated into Arthur C. Clarke’s novel, The Sands of Mars, in 1951. Since then, the prospect has been explored and tested through numerous studies and is now seen as possibility. A key issue to making this a reality deals with altering Mars’ atmosphere so that it will have sufficient levels of oxygen/ozone. The methods to which this can be achieved, as studied by NASA, seem feasible but still impractical in the long term, particularly in terms of cost. Mars’ atmosphere is mainly composed of carbon dioxide, and oxygen makes up about 0.1% of it(NASA). Mars’ temperature, which is much lower than that of Earth, would also need to be altered in the terraforming process. Terraformation on Mars has been a popular idea, since its environmental characteristics are the closest to Earth’s so far. But, due to the specifics of Mars’ temperature and atmosphere, it is unlikely that life can prosper in those conditions. There are some solutions to terraforming the hostile characteristics of Mars’ environment. For example, creating greenhouse effects with vapor would raise the temperature to a sufficient degree. However, these solutions are not achievable in the long-run. There are other potential solutions, such as genetic engineering, or altering the atmosphere to sustain more oxygen. But for now, all of these ideas are either impractical in the long run or would take way too long to be concluded as effective solutions.

Sources:

http://www.universetoday.com/127311/guide-to-terraforming/

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19770005775

- Haeun Bang

Is Building a Colony on Mars a Suicide Mission?

With the way humans have been developing technology over the past fifty years, it seems like a trip to Mars is inevitable. Whether it takes us twenty years or one hundred years, humans will eventually go to Mars. Many scientists today believe that we currently have the resources needed to send humans to Mars. For some of the plans that have been proposed, the humans we send would not come back. That is because once they get to Mars, they will attempt to build a self-sustaining colony there and a return trip home may be too difficult if the colony fails. So, if we send humans to Mars with the goal of building a colony, are we essentially sending people to their deaths? While there are many psychological risks that could have dangerous consequences, I will focus on the physical risks that could potentially kill the astronauts before or shortly after they reach Mars.

One of the reasons why people may die either before reaching Mars or shortly after is due to radiation. Without the Earth’s magnetic field and dense atmosphere to protect them, humans would be at a much higher risk to develop cancer. In addition, high radiation levels may have an effect on the heart or central nervous system which could potentially cause death. This problem could be minimized if we choose people who have a genetic resistance to radiation. In places such as Ramsar, Iran, the beaches near Guarapari, Brazil, and Yangjiang, China, there are high levels of natural radiation, but below average cancer rates meaning many of them are more likely to have a genetic resistance to radiation. However, even with people like this, there is still a high chance that they would die much sooner than they would had they stayed on Earth.

Many of the other heath risks associated with going to Mars have to do with the effect of weightlessness and reduced gravity on the human body. When humans experience an extended amount of time without gravity, their muscles atrophy and and their bones quickly become weaker as they experience bone loss. Weightlessness also causes humans to experience cognitive problems similar to the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. These medical concerns could cause a huge problem when the astronauts actually get to Mars. Since their bodies will be much weaker, it could be difficult for these people to lift the heavy objects necessary to build their colony in reduced gravity. Allowing the astronauts to run on a treadmill in microgravity as part of their training could minimize the risk, but again it would still be very difficult for these people to not only live a long life on Mars, but thrive.

It has been no secret that a trip to Mars could have deadly consequences. As with any exploration, venturing into the unknown comes with risk. However, there is some concern that even if the Mars trip is successful, the astronauts will probably die much sooner than they would have on Earth. So, is building a colony on Mars a suicide mission? It absolutely is. No matter what happens, the people we send will most likely not come back. But, this should not cause too much concern. These volunteers would die doing something remarkable by having the chance to go where no human has ever gone before. We should not be afraid to let them face this challenge.

Sources: 

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/mission-to-mars-health-risks-110718.htm
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-best-mars-colonists-could-come-from-places-like-iran-and-brazil/

- Autumn Hair

Out of the Danger Zone: Why Habitable Zones Support the Rare Earth Hypothesis

Life here on Earth is miraculous; our Earth has numerous unique characteristics that create a habitable space for complex and intelligent life to form. These traits are the reason we exist today and point towards the rare Earth hypothesis, which demonstrates we are the only intelligent life in the universe. One of the most critical characteristics the Earth has is its location in the solar system. We are in the perfect spot; we are close enough to the sun so our climate and orientation can benefit, and we are far enough so we do not experience the harmful effects of the sun. This area in a solar system is known as the “habitable zone.”¹ The habitable zone makes the Earth an ideal rocky planet for life to form and develop.

First hypothesized in the 1960s, the habitable zone in a solar system is “the region in a planetary system where habitable Earth clones might exist.”¹ The Earth is close enough to the sun so that its oceans are not completely frozen (like Mars). However, if the Earth were closer to the sun, its oceans would be in danger of boiling away. Scientists estimate the oceans on Venus evaporated at least one billion years ago. The complex life on the Earth requires water, and without the sun warming the surface, the Earth would not be able to sustain this kind of life. Scientists do hypothesize, however, that certain forms of life may exist on places like Europa, and they may not need water to survive. These organisms could thrive using only the chemicals available to them.

On the flip side, Europa does not have a sun that can keep its climate mild. The sun warms the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere traps some of the rays. Although the temperature in Antarctica is drastically different from the temperature on the equator, the climate range we experience here on the Earth is minute and ideal for life relative to other rocky planets.

Another benefit of the habitable zone comes from the gravitational force of the sun. The suns gravity pulls on the Earth, and, in turn, the Earth’s gravity puts force on the sun. This exchange of forces puts the Earth into orbit around the sun. The specific position the Earth is in causes its orbit around the sun to be only slightly elliptical compared to other planets in our solar system. This allows the Earth to remain around the same distance from the sun throughout its entire orbit; it only varies by about five million kilometers.² The almost circular orbit keeps the Earth in the habitable zone, and lets the sun continue to warm the surface most effectively.

The warm sun disappearing after the summer is not a result of the orbit, however. The seasons are caused by the Earth’s axial tilt in relation to the sun. The Earth is tilted at about 23.4 degrees. Throughout a year, the planet is tilted in the same direction relative to the background stars, meaning that when the Earth is on opposite ends of the orbit, different hemispheres are tilted towards the sun. For example, during the summer in the Northern Hemisphere, the top half of the Earth is tilted towards the sun, while the Southern Hemisphere tilts away and experiences winter. Seasons are key for intelligent life mainly because without them, humans would all stay close to the equator where the climate is most mild.

The habitable zone is a key part of our existence on the Earth; it allows the Earth to interact in a series of ways with the sun during its orbit, keeping the climate mild and the oceans liquid. The Earth’s atmosphere traps heat in, and the gravitational forces allow for a more circular orbit. Furthermore, the Earth’s axial tilt gives rise to seasons based on the hemisphere tilted towards the sun. All of these factors contribute to the planet’s suitability for complex and intelligent life, and when put together, these unique characteristics support the rare Earth hypothesis that we may actually be alone in the universe.

Sources:

¹Ward, Peter D., and Donald Brownlee. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. New York: Copernicus, 2000.

²Williams, Matt. "Earth's Orbit Around the Sun." Universe Today. N.p., 21 Nov. 2014. Web. 1 Apr. 2016. http://www.universetoday.com/61202/earths-orbit-around-the-sun/.

³Cain, Fraser. "Earth, Sun and Moon." Universe Today. N.p., 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 1 Apr. 2016. http://www.universetoday.com/26987/earth-sun-and-moon/.

- Sara Jahanian

Does Earth Serve as A Warning Not to Colonize Further?

The effect that humans have had on Earth, and the nearly undeniable effect humans are predicted to have in the future, proves that adding humans to a planet does not lead to positive things for that planet. However, many scientists and forward-thinkers have claimed that occupying another planet, and perhaps abandoning our current, dying planet, is the best possible solution to future survival.

This serves to pose a new question- if going to another planet is the best chance for our survival, should humans care that this may entail ruining the new planet as well? Are we obligated to preserve the life of possible foreign species, or should we value our own survival over that of anything found on other planets?

There are two sides to the argument about foreign life- those that believe that, since there is no sign of sentient or intelligent life on nearby planets, we shouldn’t care about our possible effect on their ecosystems. Others argue that exterminating even unintelligent species of foreign life should be avoided if at all possible. Additionally, even if colonization was not the main cause for a visit, bringing other life to until-then-unexplored planets is potentially easily done and very damaging. Without meaning to, humans could harm or even destroy the ecosystems on these planets.

Another argument to be considered is the possibility that human colonization, however damaging it may be, is more humane than colonization by some other civilization. If this is to be believed, it seems almost a given that humans should colonize as many other places as possible, since our, at least initial, purpose would be solely our survival. Unfortunately, the chances of our purposes staying focused solely on survival seems somewhat slim- looking back through human history.

There is also the possibility of other life colonizing other planets, or Earth for that matter, before we can colonize those other planets first. Humans are likely not alone in the pursuit of survival, and it is likely that other civilizations may be just as self-destructive to their own planets as we have been to ours. If this is the case, these civilizations have just as much of a chance at colonizing the planets surrounding us as we do, and could therefore take away our chances at survival. This implies that colonization should be done as soon as possible, to limit the chance of other civilizations colonizing available planets before we can.

However, no matter what possible future decisions seem the best, there may always be a few (or many) people that will strive for colonization. Despite any concerns that may arise, humans will always strive towards survival, and if colonization seems the surest way to survive, there will be people determined to follow through with it.

Sources:

http://foundational-research.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-suffering/

- Mary Garrett

The Unknown

How can we account for our loneliness in this world? We have estimated the age of our galaxy to be around ten thousand million years. Enrico Fermi, an Italian physicist who lived during the first half of the 20^th century, asked the question: “Where is everybody?” Fermi realized that, given the age of the galaxy, life should be present all around it. So how come we are struggling to just find a glimpse of life? There are three possible answers to this question: aliens exist and do interact with us, aliens exist but have not gotten in contact, or they do not exist (anymore).

Given the age of the universe, I personally find the first and third answers to be the most likely. If we were able to reach the level of technology we are currently at in such a (relatively) short time, it should be likely that some other race has reached a level similar to ours, if not have surpassed it. If this is the case, then perhaps they have already found us. If they have already found us, why do we not know? There are so many potential explanations for this situation. Perhaps they were the ones who colonized us. What if instead, the universe was stuck in an endless cycle? Each race of people on a planet would advance to a certain point. At this point, either the people destroy themselves or they destroy their planet. When this occurs, a group of people are sent out to colonize a new planet; a new planet in which the existence of the old planet is wiped away from history. Or what if we are basically just a farm? A concept similar to the one shown in the 2015 movie, Jupiter Ascending, could be in play here. Our planet is left to grow until it reaches a certain point, and then we are culled (this could be the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs as well).

On the other hand, it could be possible that the aliens just cannot reach us, because they are not technologically advanced enough, or we did not develop in the similar ways, so we cannot understand each other. There are many possible ways to communicate. It is possible that aliens have been sending out signals as well; we just cannot understand or receive these signals. It is also possible that no race has been able to reach the point of communication because they were beset with a catastrophe and were wiped out first. However, there previous existence, as of now, cannot be proved. Finally, there is the frightening prospect that we are the only ones living in this universe. At this point, we would either be the only surviving race or the first living, technologically advanced race. Each and every one of these possibilities is plausible, but there are also problems with each. We have yet to find solid proof for any of these possibilities. As a result, we are still stuck in the unknown.

Sources:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec28.html

- Stephanie Bao

Panspermia Theory: A Brief Overview

In December 1984, a research team discovered a potato­-sized chunk of four-­billion­-year­-old Martian rock in Antarctica, setting a record for the oldest known meteorite from Mars. The meteorite, ALH84001, was the only Martian sample ever found from this period, therefore containing the first available data on what Mars was like four billion years ago. Already this was an exciting prospect for scientists... but nothing compared to the furor that erupted when ALH84001 appeared to contain evidence of alien life.

Tiny structures resembling worm fossils were found in the meteorite’s interior, inside pockets indicative of the presence of ancient water. ALH84001 rose to an unprecedented level of infamy as paper after paper was released, with dozens of scientists arguing over whether this particular space rock had once harbored life. And in the process of this new, specific debate, an older and far more general debate was brought back into the public eye: the debate over the panspermia hypothesis.

Panspermia is the theory that microbes or organic molecules are found throughout space, moving from place to place on meteors, comets, or artificial vehicles; or even drifting naked through the void. This idea is a popular one in science fiction, found perhaps most notably in Michael Crichton’s 1969 novel The Andromeda Strain, but its numerous iterations appear in widely varying productions, from Star Trek to The X­-Files to Doctor Who.

The most common versions of panspermia theory involve bacteria or other microbes traveling through space while dormant inside comets or meteors. According to this theory, sometimes, when a large meteor strikes a planet with enough force, native rocks from that planet are blasted upwards with sufficient velocity to escape the planet’s gravity, carrying biological materials with them. Aside from the biological aspect, this phenomenon has been observed and documented: Earth has many meteors that originated on the moon and Mars (including ALH84001), so it may not be a stretch to imagine that such a meteor might pick up organic material on its way out, assuming there was organic material to be picked up. Whether that material could survive a meteoric impact is another story ­ although microbial life has proven surprisingly hardy in extreme conditions, including the vacuum of space.

However, the most plausible panspermia theory is probably pseudo­-panspermia, which posits that planetary life can arise from space­-born organic molecules (rather than fully formed cells hurtling through space). Organic molecules independent of life are indeed found in space: they are formed as part of the dust that gets ejected from a star during a supernova. Particles that resemble this organic dust have been found in ancient meteorites, leading some astronomers to believe that they may have been present during the formation of our solar system. Nascent planets were constantly pummeled with space debris over millions of years; it is certainly possible that some of these meteorites brought organic dust with them as they smashed into Earth. However, there is little evidence linking this to the origin of Earth life.

On the other end of the spectrum is directed panspermia: the dissemination of life or organic compounds by intelligent species. By far the most popular version of panspermia among the sci­-fi crowd, the directed panspermia hypothesis also has some surprising support in the scientific community ­- notably by Francis Crick, co­-discoverer of DNA’s role as genetic material. There is unsurprisingly almost no evidence that favors directed panspermia. Like all other panspermia theories, the problem is that there is little evidence either for or against it. It may seem a very implausible idea, but it is almost impossible to disprove.

Sources

http://www.space.com/9366­-meteorite­-based­-debate­-martian-­life.html
http://www.panspermia­-theory.com/
http://www.space.com/5843-­legged­-space­-survivor­-panspermia-life.html
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026143721.htm
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest­-blog/the­-origins-­of­-directed­-panspermia/

- Emma Flickinger

Asking the Big Questions

Do we exist? This is a question that I’ve been curious about for some time. You probably already have some notion of what the question means, but what is the question really asking? Asking the question “do we exist” is not so different from asking “are we alive” if you think about it. Both ask an existential question regarding our identity­­­­.

Before answering the larger question of “Do we exist?” or “Are we alive?” we first need answer the smaller question “What does it mean to be alive or to exist?” Ferris Jabr, in an article on the Scientific American website, discusses why we categorize machines as dead, but animals and humans as living. Consider a cat or a dog. Cats and dogs are the result of millions of years of evolution, finally becoming what we know as cats and dogs. This process of constantly updating and evolving is similar to the way we make machines. First simpler machines are made, but over time we adapt machines to become stronger and more capable. In this way cats and dogs can be viewed as very complex machines. While arguing that a cat or a dog is a machine may seem quite ridiculous, the similarities are almost overwhelming between the two. How can you separate the two by defining the features of life and death? In fact, defining the unique features of life is an incomplete task. No all-encompassing list has yet been compiled that includes all entities we think of as “alive,” while also excluding everything we consider “dead.”

But what does this mean for us? If we can’t prove that we are alive, or rather can’t prove we are different from things that are dead, what does it mean for us to exist? Existence is really a complex idea. In some fashion to prove something exists you just have to show the object or being you are talking about isn’t made up. To prove something exists you prove it doesn’t not exist! Consider the example “if Gabe is having a birthday party he will bake a cake and put it on the table.” If we do not see any cake on the table does that mean Gabe did not bake a cake? It is impossible to prove that Gabe did not bake a cake for there are many ways for the cake to disappear after being put on the table. We have no way to prove the non-existence of Gabe’s cake.

The inability to prove the absence of something is a problem humanity struggles with constantly. Regarding existence we regularly ask this question on a universal scale, asking the question “Do aliens exist?” This is a binary question so the only possible answers are “yes” and “no.” However, the only way to receive a definitive answer is to find aliens. If we find aliens we know they exist, because we found them, but if they don’t exist we have no way to prove they aren’t out in space somewhere we haven’t looked yet. When asking if something exists or not you cannot expect the answer to either be “yes” or “no”…the answers you should be looking for are “yes” or “maybe.”

Sources:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/why-life-does-not-really-exist/
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3492 

- Adin Adler