Terraforming: making alien worlds livable

[Le Socialiste]

Incredible Technology: How to Use 'Shells' to Terraform a Planet

One day, humans could re-make a world in Earth's image.

Engineering an inhospitable world into a livable one, a process known as terraforming, could be a successful way to colonize another world after a long, interstellar journey, said Ken Roy, an engineer and presenter at last week's Starship Congress in Dallas, Tex.

Roy's terraforming vision hinges upon what he calls "shell worlds." Upon arrival at an ideal planet, humans would literally encase the alien world inside of a protective shell made from Kevlar, dirt and steel. [Shell-Worlds: How Humanity Could Terraform Small Planets (Infographic )]

"We have a central world. We put an atmosphere on it," Roy said. We can have the "composition, temperature, pressure of our choosing. Let's assume we want 'Earth-normal,' and we put a shell around the central world to contain this atmosphere. The atmosphere then exists between the shell and the central world. The outer part of the shell is essentially a vacuum."

While the planet's gravity would remain unchanged, the rest of the world could be made very similar to Earth after importing vital materials, Roy said. The new world could even have some benefits not afforded on Earth, such as:

Industry and facilities that could benefit from access to a vacuum could use a port that connects to the outside of the shell. Ultraviolet radiation from a star would not be a problem since the world would be fully encased in the shell. The heating, cooling and the length of a day on the world would not be dependent upon the orbit of the planet around a star. The shell would provide radiation protection. The world would provide an almost limitless playground for design. For example, cities could hang down from the interior of the shell. A small planetary body like Mars or even Pluto would be a great candidate for the shell world treatment, Roy said.

Martian gravity is about one third that of Earth's, and the surface area of the Red Planet is equal to the land area of Earth. Mars has no magnetic field; plate tectonics seem to be non-existent, and the planet's core is frozen, Roy said.

While all of these factors might seem to add up into an inhospitable world, they actually make a Martian-type planet a great candidate for shelling.

"That is not a bad thing," Roy said. "It means you don’t have to deal with volcanoes and earthquakes. I'd say that's a good thing."

Roy admits that these kinds of worlds wouldn't be perfect. The creation of a habitable shell world would be an intensive process; large amounts of nitrogen and water would need to be imported or produced on the planet, and the construction of a shell itself would be a vast undertaking. But it might be preferable to other ways of terraforming, he said.

Traditional terraforming methods used on a Mars-like body would require mirrors that reflect sunlight down onto the planet's surface, simulating a greenhouse effect for a small planet.

If the world's manufactured atmosphere is designed to provide Earth-like conditions on the surface of the traditionally terraformed home, then engineers would need the equivalent of about half of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere imported to Mars, Roy said. That atmosphere would also bleed off into space eventually.

A Mars-sized shell world would only require about 6.6 percent of the mass of Earth's atmosphere, a much more manageable amount of material.

Shells could provide the next step once humans actually reached a Mars-sized planet orbiting another star, Roy said.

"Getting [to another star] is half the battle, but you also have to give thought to what you do once you get there," he said. "One of the objectives of travelling to another star … is colonization. It's unlikely that once we get to an alien star system, we'll find a world that we can move into."

http://news.yahoo.com/incredible-technology-shells-terraform-planet-140940649.html

[Hrafn]

Very interesting.

[Ledur]

The easiest way is to make self-replicating nanorobots or bacteriae, in order to build an livable atmosphere, but this process can take more than 500 years in Mars, for example.

[AmilcarCabral]

Interesting, I think that we also need to develop a faster speed for space-traveling. I also believe in extraterresrial life. I wish that in the near future the scientific comunity and the people of SETI will find something

[zoot_allures]

It's very questionable whether we'll have hospitable conditions on our own planet by the next century... I think that terraforming, at least where we have any significant control over it, is a complete fantasy at the moment.

[Questionable]

Awesome. I say we turn this technology back toward earth and terraform it back into something livable after centuries of capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The easiest way is to make self-replicating nanorobots or bacteriae, in order to build an livable atmosphere, but this process can take more than 500 years in Mars, for example.

Surely if they're self-replicating, then there's the potential for the growth curve to be exponential? Which would mean that it shouldn't take that long.


It's very questionable whether we'll have hospitable conditions on our own planet by the next century... I think that terraforming, at least where we have any significant control over it, is a complete fantasy at the moment.

If the habitability of the Earth is threatened as you say, then that makes terraforming all the more relevant, as the geo-engineering necessary to maintain that habitability could be considered a related field.

[RevolucionarBG]

The easiest way is to make self-replicating nanorobots or bacteriae, in order to build an livable atmosphere, but this process can take more than 500 years in Mars, for example.

Well, that's true, but we'll first need to make a colony there, and to move land from earth to Mars, and to try in isolated, closed space to make a self-replicating nanorobots or bacteriae, and to gradually to expose it to the conditions on Mars.

[AmilcarCabral]

Questionable: you are right, there is even a technology to grow trees and food in conditions that are real hot. I think that's we need right now to invest in advanced technology to prevent more climate disasters, to grow food and of course the distribution of wealth thru the implementation and installation of workers-dictatorships in each country of the world



Awesome. I say we turn this technology back toward earth and terraform it back into something livable after centuries of capitalism.

[zoot_allures]

If the habitability of the Earth is threatened as you say, then that makes terraforming all the more relevant, as the geo-engineering necessary to maintain that habitability could be considered a related field.
I didn't say terraforming was irrelevant, I said it was a fantasy, and many of the more ambitious geo-engineering plans seems like fantasies too.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I didn't say terraforming was irrelevant, I said it was a fantasy, and many of the more ambitious geo-engineering plans seems like fantasies too.

Fantasy? It's going on right now, and has been worldwide since the industrial revolution...

[zoot_allures]

Fantasy? It's going on right now, and has been worldwide since the industrial revolution...
It's important to bear in mind each word I used there: I said "many of the more ambitious geo-engineering plans" not "all geoengineering plans" or even "all the more ambitious geoengineering plans".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I didn't say terraforming was irrelevant, I said it was a fantasy, and many of the more ambitious geo-engineering plans seems like fantasies too.

Since pretty much any hypothetical engineering project can be dismissed off-hand as a fantasy, I fail to see what if any substance or utility there is behind applying that label to terraforming and/or geo-engineering.

Someone in the 1930s could easily have called landing human beings on the Moon a fantasy, but that wouldn't have had any bearing on whether or not it happened in the 1960s and 1970s

[AmilcarCabral]

I would like to add something to this debate about terraforming. I just would like to say that in the near future, there will be super-hurricanes, more natural disasters, earthquakes, comets coming to earth, and lots of real dangerous situations for the poor people of this world. That's why the left of each country of this world, should put away their ideological purity, unite into united leftist parties, get their acts together, think of a plan of how to reach government-power, in order to to save the poor people of this world from the super-hurricanes, the tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters. After the installation of workers-states, it would be good for the scientists of the workers-states to think of a plan to fight climate change, to prevent more super hurricanes and global warming. And at the same time thru investing in exploration, terraforming the colonization of other planets.

Because I don't know a lot about climate, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanos. I think that there isn't a real cure for those natural disasters. Scientists predict that the earth is getting hotter and hotter and I don't think that mankind can do any thing about it in order to stop global warming and natural killer disasters

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

lol, this would just turn into nuclear weapons x a million billion.

Seriously, you guys do NOT want to give our dear leaders the power to engineer a fucking climate, or a fucking planet. Can you imagine giving them the power to create droughts, to change water flows, to deplete the ozone?

It'd be the closest we'd come to privatising life.

Don't support this shit, it's bogus. If we get to the stage where we have to geo-engineer planets and their climates, we have gone wayyyyyyyy past the line.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

lol, this would just turn into nuclear weapons x a million billion.

Seriously, you guys do NOT want to give our dear leaders the power to engineer a fucking climate, or a fucking planet. Can you imagine giving them the power to create droughts, to change water flows, to deplete the ozone?

The ruling classes are bourgeois, not super-villains. Geo-engineering would be done to ensure the survival of the capitalist price system and then maybe to make a profit.

Nuclear weapons have already been invented. Geo-engineering would be really slow to deploy, labour intensive, and would most likely require shifting industrial quantities of goods and/or materials around. For geo-engineering to be a more attractive big pointy stick (i.e. a way of using force to get what you want) than nukes would require enough breakthroughs to lead to something like say, self-reproducing nanotechnology, but that would be part of the consequence of another invention entirely.


It'd be the closest we'd come to privatising life.

Eh? You are aware that even under capitalism, big public works happen and aren't necessarily privatised up the wazzoo. The US really wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon in the Space Race in order to really show up the commies, but even then a large part of the scientific work and of NASA work in general is effectively in the public domain. The work may have been done by private companies, but who was organising and setting the ground rules for the whole affair?

And that was without any pressure from the public whatsoever. If somebody attempted to privatise the results of a geo-engineering project (which would by definition have global consequences), then outcry and disobedience would abound. We all have to breathe air and drink something potable and eat, and if that becomes too hard to do "legally" or without paying, then more and more people will end up doing just that - breaking the law and "stealing" to survive.

If the ruling classes don't realise or don't care that such a course of action would turn even more people into criminals, then their own stupidity and greed is going to set them up for a humiliating climb-down if not outright defeat.


Don't support this shit, it's bogus. If we get to the stage where we have to geo-engineer planets and their climates, we have gone wayyyyyyyy past the line.

In which case we should just do nothing and wait to die, is that it? Fuck that prospect.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2689051]The ruling classes are bourgeois, not super-villains. Geo-engineering would be done to ensure the survival of the capitalist price system and then maybe to make a profit.

What? The only purpose of the capitalist price system is to ensure the social position of the bourgeoisie by producing a surplus...


Nuclear weapons have already been invented. Geo-engineering would be really slow to deploy, labour intensive, and would most likely require shifting industrial quantities of goods and/or materials around. For geo-engineering to be a more attractive big pointy stick (i.e. a way of using force to get what you want) than nukes would require enough breakthroughs to lead to something like say, self-reproducing nanotechnology, but that would be part of the consequence of another invention entirely.

Even if it's slow to deploy and labour intensive, the ability to manipulate the climate would represent a huge economic opportunity for any capitalist, especially today's corporations who would have the ability to scale investment up to such a project.


Eh? You are aware that even under capitalism, big public works happen and aren't necessarily privatised up the wazzoo. The US really wanted to beat the Soviets to the Moon in the Space Race in order to really show up the commies, but even then a large part of the scientific work and of NASA work in general is effectively in the public domain. The work may have been done by private companies, but who was organising and setting the ground rules for the whole affair?

You're talking about a different time. There's no USSR now - the western world doesn't need the facade of a strong state alleviating poverty and pursuing social justice. That's why public services are now generally organised and completed in the private sector.

The state doesn't control capital, it's the other way round anyway .


In which case we should just do nothing and wait to die, is that it? Fuck that prospect.

No, we should build the economics of climate change into public policy. So instead of pissing around with cap and trade carbon pricing bullshit, we should move towards more serious policies that cap emissions worldwide, so that extremist, dangerous ideas like climate geoengineering don't need to be resorted to.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What? The only purpose of the capitalist price system is to ensure the social position of the bourgeoisie by producing a surplus...

Yes, and the kind of geo-engineering activity you seem to be implying would be in direct opposition to such aims. One can't produce a surplus if fewer and fewer economic actors are able to spend money on anything beyond mere survival.


Even if it's slow to deploy and labour intensive, the ability to manipulate the climate would represent a huge economic opportunity for any capitalist, especially today's corporations who would have the ability to scale investment up to such a project.

Sure, but manipulating the climate in one's favour would also tread on the toes of other capitalists.


You're talking about a different time. There's no USSR now - the western world doesn't need the facade of a strong state alleviating poverty and pursuing social justice. That's why public services are now generally organised and completed in the private sector.

Except that since climate change is a global problem that doesn't discriminate by class*, any attempt to manipulate the climate via geo-engineering, without the assent of the majority of the world's ruling classes, is going to provoke a damaging conflict.

*Sure, the more wealthy one is, the greater one's options are in terms of mitigating the problems brought about by climate change, but if the ruling classes waste time trying focusing entirely on making profits and/or trying to get one over each other, rather than fixing the problem that threatens their very way of life, then that just makes it all the more likely that a disaster directly effecting them will strike during the lifetime of those alive today.


The state doesn't control capital, it's the other way round anyway.

Not the point. The point is that mechanisms exist under capitalism to get shit done that is perceived by capital as vitally necessary, too important to leave to the markets. The bourgeois state is exactly that kind of mechanism.


No, we should build the economics of climate change into public policy. So instead of pissing around with cap and trade carbon pricing bullshit, we should move towards more serious policies that cap emissions worldwide, so that extremist, dangerous ideas like climate geoengineering don't need to be resorted to.

And if it turns out that "building the economics of climate change into public policy" is by itself insufficient? Which might very well be the case, if it takes long enough for meaningful action to be taken.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, and the kind of geo-engineering activity you seem to be implying would be in direct opposition to such aims. One can't produce a surplus if fewer and fewer economic actors are able to spend money on anything beyond mere survival.

What? It would be a capitalist's dream if the most demand inelastic goods in the world like food, water and other basic necessities were to see a sharp and irreversible rise in prices. It would remove much uncertainty from the price system and ensure the social position of the bourgeoisie for a long, long time to come.



Sure, but manipulating the climate in one's favour would also tread on the toes of other capitalists.

So? The capitalist class isn't homogenous. They don't work together. They are individual actors who just so happen to hold an exploitative social position vis the working class. The financial capitalists have trodden on the toes of industrial capital, anti-competitive corporations have stepped on the toes of smaller and medium size enterprises. Whilst price competition may not exist any more under capitalism (the fabled 'free market'), it is certainly a competitive system, no more so than within the capitalist class itself.


And if it turns out that "building the economics of climate change into public policy" is by itself insufficient? Which might very well be the case, if it takes long enough for meaningful action to be taken.

Then we're all fucked, pretty much. If climate change is that bad, the earth will prove to be close to in-hospitable for most of the planet's wildlife, people will be killed in random and common extreme weather, much of earth will become too hot to live in, many islands will disappear etc.

Doomsday scenarios of a 6 degree or above rise in temperature are seriously not worth thinking about. If you think geo-engineering would be anything other than a catastrophic path to have to go down, then I don't think you fully understand either the science or economics of climate change.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What? It would be a capitalist's dream if the most demand inelastic goods in the world like food, water and other basic necessities were to see a sharp and irreversible rise in prices. It would remove much uncertainty from the price system and ensure the social position of the bourgeoisie for a long, long time to come.

No it wouldn't, because the workers who produce the wealth that the ruling classes appropriate would be too busy surviving to bother making fancy shit for the ruling classes to enjoy. Also, making fancy shit for the ruling classes would become more and more difficult as more people are pushed into survival mode.

It's not a sustainable strategy unless one is a Dark Overlord or a James Bond villain.


So? The capitalist class isn't homogenous. They don't work together. They are individual actors who just so happen to hold an exploitative social position vis the working class. The financial capitalists have trodden on the toes of industrial capital, anti-competitive corporations have stepped on the toes of smaller and medium size enterprises. Whilst price competition may not exist any more under capitalism (the fabled 'free market'), it is certainly a competitive system, no more so than within the capitalist class itself.

That's exactly my point. There are significant sections of the capitalists who have no material interest in reducing everyone else into complete penury, because that will mean the end of their comfortable lifestyles. At "best" this would mean being forced by economic circumstances into being proletarian. At worst, personal extinction if not the extinction of the entire capitalist system. Said sections would actively fight against such an eventuality, and it's not a given that they would necessarily lose such a fight.


Then we're all fucked, pretty much. If climate change is that bad, the earth will prove to be close to in-hospitable for most of the planet's wildlife, people will be killed in random and common extreme weather, much of earth will become too hot to live in, many islands will disappear etc.

We're not even close to dead yet, so forgive me if I don't share your pessimism.


Doomsday scenarios of a 6 degree or above rise in temperature are seriously not worth thinking about. If you think geo-engineering would be anything other than a catastrophic path to have to go down, then I don't think you fully understand either the science or economics of climate change.

Nothing you've actually said indicates that the problem is with geo-engineering in general rather than specific projects in particular. Instead you've given nothing but unsubstantiated hyperbole ("nuclear weapons x a million billion"!) and specious arguments that rely on fear (of what capitalists might do, regardless of whether or not it is in their actual or perceived interests) and uncertainty (geo-engineering has been widely talked about, but a specific project has yet to be seriously considered).

Now of course if a geo-engineering project was proposed in the near future, then it is practically certain there would be at least one thing about it that would make it politically objectionable. But that doesn't invalidate geo-engineering in general, any more than fossil fuels invalidate the concept of electricity generation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2689349]No it wouldn't, because the workers who produce the wealth that the ruling classes appropriate would be too busy surviving to bother making fancy shit for the ruling classes to enjoy. Also, making fancy shit for the ruling classes would become more and more difficult as more people are pushed into survival mode.

Perhaps, but that's getting into crazy extremes. It is possible for a situation to occur whereby inelastic, basic goods such as food and water see an irreversible spike in their prices.

In fact if you think about it, this is what has happened with oil, and it has neither led to social upheaval, nor to any change in the social position of the bourgeoisie in capitalist society.


That's exactly my point. There are significant sections of the capitalists who have no material interest in reducing everyone else into complete penury, because that will mean the end of their comfortable lifestyles. At "best" this would mean being forced by economic circumstances into being proletarian. At worst, personal extinction if not the extinction of the entire capitalist system. Said sections would actively fight against such an eventuality, and it's not a given that they would necessarily lose such a fight.

This is the same argument could be used to describe the late 19th/early 20th century move away from the free market towards the centralisation of capital. Industrial capital in the developed nations largely lost out to financial capital but, again, the changing composition of the capitalist class did not lead to a change in its actual social position vis the working class.



We're not even close to dead yet, so forgive me if I don't share your pessimism.


I take it you're not from the Philipines. Or Indonesia. Or Japan. Or New Orleans. Many people are actually dead because of freak weather, many more people will die of tropical disease and starvation due to changing climates and disruptions to food distribution networks respectively.



Nothing you've actually said indicates that the problem is with geo-engineering in general rather than specific projects in particular. Instead you've given nothing but unsubstantiated hyperbole ("nuclear weapons x a million billion"!)

Geo-engineering is drastic. It's not just some extension of public policy. We are talking about engineering the climate of an entire planet; at best, this can be seen as experimental.

Given this, the onus is on proponents of geo-engineering to propose a method of climate engineering that is safe, equitable, and won't fall into the wrong hands. Currently, it fails on all fronts, and indeed the technology isn't really there anyway.


and specious arguments that rely on fear (of what capitalists might do, regardless of whether or not it is in their actual or perceived interests) and uncertainty (geo-engineering has been widely talked about, but a specific project has yet to be seriously considered).

I didn't think i'd see the day when a leftist describes suspicion of the state as a 'specious argument'. Why the fuck would I trust the state which gives the bourgeoisie their social and political authority with engineering the climate of an entire fucking planet?


But that doesn't invalidate geo-engineering in general, any more than fossil fuels invalidate the concept of electricity generation.

You're right. What invalidates geo-engineering in general is that we don't currently have the technology to do it and it's wildly unsafe for the entire planet. That should be reason enough.

If you even skim read the literature on the economics of climate change, you'll see that across the spectrum of views, they all view geo-engineering as un-desirable and dangerous.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps, but that's getting into crazy extremes. It is possible for a situation to occur whereby inelastic, basic goods such as food and water see an irreversible spike in their prices.

In fact if you think about it, this is what has happened with oil, and it has neither led to social upheaval, nor to any change in the social position of the bourgeoisie in capitalist society.

It might not have happened with oil, but if it happens with every other commodity as well? (Which seems a distinct possible consequence of climate change) Then you'll have your "crazy extremes".


This is the same argument could be used to describe the late 19th/early 20th century move away from the free market towards the centralisation of capital. Industrial capital in the developed nations largely lost out to financial capital but, again, the changing composition of the capitalist class did not lead to a change in its actual social position vis the working class.

And I suspect that the rest of capital will gladly throw finance capital to the sharks, in the event that they perceive it as necessary.


I take it you're not from the Philipines. Or Indonesia. Or Japan. Or New Orleans. Many people are actually dead because of freak weather, many more people will die of tropical disease and starvation due to changing climates and disruptions to food distribution networks respectively.

Since I don't believe that "we're fucked", I consider that more than sufficient grounds to do something about climate change, including geo-engineering if it comes to it.


Geo-engineering is drastic. It's not just some extension of public policy. We are talking about engineering the climate of an entire planet; at best, this can be seen as experimental.

Reason to be cautious, then. But not reason to be intimidated.


Given this, the onus is on proponents of geo-engineering to propose a method of climate engineering that is safe, equitable, and won't fall into the wrong hands. Currently, it fails on all fronts, and indeed the technology isn't really there anyway.

Maybe it fails today. Doesn't mean it'll fail tomorrow.


I didn't think i'd see the day when a leftist describes suspicion of the state as a 'specious argument'. Why the fuck would I trust the state which gives the bourgeoisie their social and political authority with engineering the climate of an entire fucking planet?

Sure, there are a lot of subjects on which the bourgeois state should not be trusted on. But in this case, since the state is composed of human beings who happen to share the same planet with you, they don't want their lifestyles negatively disrupted any more than you do. Excessive rocking of the boat through attempting to co-opt geo-engineering for the purposes of venal corruption risks losing everything, and that's unacceptable to any capitalist with a sense of self-preservation. Better to bite the bullet and eat the costs of geo-engineering done properly, because that will mean only risking the loss of something rather than everything.


You're right. What invalidates geo-engineering in general is that we don't currently have the technology to do it and it's wildly unsafe for the entire planet. That should be reason enough.

If we don't have the technology to actually do it, how do we know it's universally unsafe, hmm? How will we ever truly know unless we take the steps to actually develop such technology?


If you even skim read the literature on the economics of climate change, you'll see that across the spectrum of views, they all view geo-engineering as un-desirable and dangerous.

A popular opinion is not necessarily a correct one. Besides, I reject your implied false dichotomy of either geo-engineering or other solutions. Geo-engineering is but one potential toolset among many for dealing with the challenges of climate change.

[Ledur]

Surely if they're self-replicating, then there's the potential for the growth curve to be exponential? Which would mean that it shouldn't take that long.

Well, there's a limit to this growth, namely the planet's surface ;)

With a thin layer of bacteria, it could take too long to break CO2 molecules.

[skitty]

We've seen the problems caused by non-native, invasive species here. I wonder if even the simple microorganisms we carry around with us would become a major problem on another planet?

[consuming negativity]

I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the "this is a fantasy (and waste of time)" boat yet, because I think developing and exploring technology is important and don't want to write anything off when I am not a person with a lot of education in the field. However, I think it is important to stress that these things don't exist now, and that depending on them or hoping for them for our future as a species is extremely careless and risky. We should keep our minds fixated on one planet at a time and get this one under control - what would be the point of terraforming Mars to look like Earth when Earth is a sewer? Moreover, couldn't that money be put to much better use here not only with environmental projects but with all sorts of things to better our lives? Terraforming another planet is only desirable out of curiosity or necessity, and curiosity is trumped by reality in this case.

[tallguy]

Technological utopianism is just another form of escapism. Another way to dream up excuses for shitting in our own nest and not worrying about the mess we are making.

This is our home and we're going nowhere.