Click to expand
#23 - felixjarl ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
This image has expired
It is estimated that would only take 100,000 years of terraforming with the technology we posses today to gave it a near-earth appearance and climate.
User avatar #31 to #23 - grocer (01/17/2013) [-]
I better start packing then!
#25 to #23 - matthamsnine ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
I think you overestermated a little. here is what Robert Zurbin (a former Martin-Marietta aerospace engineer, prolific author and founder of the non-profit Mars Society) has to say;

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.

tl:dr. using current technology it would take around 1,150 years to make Mars habitable
#188 to #25 - jaketasticness (01/17/2013) [-]
I'll start loading the space ark.
#175 to #25 - admiralen has deleted their comment [-]
#191 to #175 - necessary **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #226 to #191 - admiralen ONLINE (01/18/2013) [-]
ye, but shouldnt that mean this would take 200 years?
#166 to #25 - penistar (01/17/2013) [-]
Mfw We were born too early
#127 to #25 - retris (01/17/2013) [-]
made my day
made my day
#119 to #25 - masterbatey (01/17/2013) [-]
And then you have to consider the progress of technology. It is estimated that our technology doubles every 18 months. If scientists had such a ultimatum as making Mars habitable they could probably even do it even quicker.
#104 to #25 - chariot (01/17/2013) [-]
Another problem: the low gravity on Mars is not able to hold an atmosphere. Most (all?) gasses on Mars will just float into space.
User avatar #112 to #104 - hearmenow (01/17/2013) [-]
Not all of it though. The gasses would slowly escape its atmosphere, but it is possible! We would have to bring new water and greenhouse gasses to Mars from elsewhere though, which kinda sucks because Mars won't be able to sustain life entirely by its own resources
User avatar #67 to #25 - serhiy (01/17/2013) [-]
what about solar wind mars has not real magnetic field meaning that the atmosphere will just simply be ripped away from the planet
#66 to #25 - anon (01/17/2013) [-]
I'll say one thing and one thing only:
How the bloody **** are you going to get an electromagnetic field to protect your terraforming during the 4th stage from the solar flares? I mean, fo srs...
#69 to #66 - matthamsnine ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
best answer I (google) can come up with. make an artifical moon in orbit around mars to "tug" on the planets core to get it moving again. I guess we could always try to move one of the larger asteroids from the belt and put it in orbit but i think that will have to wait for our technology to advance a little!
#41 to #25 - taurusguy has deleted their comment [-]
#26 to #25 - felixjarl ONLINE (01/17/2013) [-]
This image has expired
I was only quoting Illustrated science.

But i can deeply say that you know a lot more of this than me so i think your point is the most accurate.

 Friends (0)