...Or Hit It With A Rock?

"How about just enough to start 'climate change'..any guestimate on how big and fast an impact would need to be - presumably would also depend on where it impacted?? Posted by pmn1 at Space.com" Any SINGLE impact to "...start 'climate change...'" to a significant degree would have to be something in the vicinity of the Cretaceous-Tertiary Event (AKA "bye-bye, dinosaurs!"), initiating a notorious period of mass extinction on Earth. Better make sure no-one's on the surface of Mars if you're dropping one of those! It left the approximately 300km wide Chicxulub impact basin in northern Yucatan, Mexico. It's believed that 65 million years ago, a 10 kilometer diameter asteroid penetrated Earth's crust at a speed of 15 to 20 kilometers per second; the kinetic energy equalled the energy of 300 million nuclear weapons and created temperatures hotter than on the sun's surface for several minutes. Incredibly, Mars has taken much bigger hits than this and survived (leaving the 2,300 km Hellas impact basin) - but probably lost its atmosphere in the process. Before we seriously consider a martian bombardment, we should consider the possibility of unintended side-effects. As previously pointed out, a really massive collision can entirely destroy a planet - where DID that asteroid belt come from...? A smaller, but still sizable collision might not destroy the planet, but could have undesired effects elsewhere on the planet's surface, not just at the impact site - check out the diagram here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=kAup0TOL09gC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=impact+outgassing&source=bl&ots=218_rgLq6_&sig=qeYdV3FxlRk_i2v-XMJbeTiIRF8&hl=en&ei=pq-jSdXHAYmMsAPIjdmjAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA542,M1 and the text reads: "...an antipodal relationship between the Hellas impact basin and the Alba Patera volcanism on Mars was pointed out....the convergence of seismic waves was intense enough to fracture the Martian crust." Also consider the immediate cooling effect of the dust clouds in the atmosphere, along with other unpleasantness: http://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/asteroid_text.shtml

"Nuke the Red Planet?" (Sticknmuv, space.com)

The argument of terraforming versus ecopoiesis continues in Sticknmuv's posting at space.com (click on the title to link to the original posting). Fortunately, I wrote my dissertation on "...The Application of Desert Reclaimation Techniques To Ecopoiesis On Mars," so have studied the subject in depth. 'Ecopoiesis' is a 'softer' term for terraforming, meaning the 'making of a home,' without the invasive, transformative connotations of terraforming. Ecopoiesis supports the notion of protected, enclosed habitats, e.g. underground and/or dome-covered compounds, protected from the existing conditions of Mars, so that the presence of settlements would have a minimal impact on Mars itself. "Nuking Mars," in addition to having a negligible and short term effect on global surface temperatures (most of the thermal energy released is as a radiant flash, very little would be absorbed by the crust, and would cool rapidly) would result in massive clouds of lethally irradiated dust being kicked up into the atmosphere, probably covering Mars in a radioactive dust storm that would filter out the already scant sunlight, plunging temperatures at the surface even lower, and presenting any would-be future inhabitants with a less than desirable top-soil to grow their Martian crops in, should said radioactive dust storm ever settle. Furthermore, any interest in visiting Mars would most likely be scientific, with teams of geologists (soon to be areologists) eager to study rock formations in the Martian landscape. Not much to study if you blew it up.... And, as pointed out, there might actually be something living there already! Even if there isn't, why deny future generations the pleasure of trying to find the elusive "Loch Mars Monster?" The "loss of atmosphere," some people seem concerned with is a combined function of Mars' low gravity and incident sunlight, which very gradually depletes the water vapour in the atmosphere of hydrogen atoms; incoming photons 'knock' the atoms at the upper limits of Mars' atmosphere out in to space. The rest of the atmosphere is quite safe. The only other 'atmospheric loss' is through chemical weathering of the regolith, but this is not a loss to space, only to the ground; life cycles or processing could potentially release such gases back into the atmosphere again. One unaccounted for benefit of impacting the surface of Mars, be it with nukes, icy or metallic asteroids, is outgassing; a hard enough strike against the crust would vapourise gas-forming elements from the weathered regolith and breach to the Martian mantle, releasing further atmospheric elements in a similar way to vulcanism here on Earth. Since Mars no longer has vulcanism, die-hard terraformers might wish to consider a program of impact outgassing to replenish atmospheric elements and raise overall air pressure (and therefore surface temperature). Rather than randomly peppering the surface with redirected asteroids or comets, which would represent a considerable hazard to anyone on the surface, an exhaustively studied and remote site of little further geological interest could be selected as a repetitive outgassing target, and an orbital railgun could be used to accurately impact this target with metallic projectiles formed from mined asteroids or materials acquired from surface mining operations (William Gibson gave me this idea in one of his cyberpunk novels - "Mona Lisa Overdrive," I think...?). The Martian atmosphere is thin - around 6 millibars, depending on the season, but comprised mostly of carbon dioxide, so that there is roughly the same amount of CO2 in Mars' and Earth's atmospheres. Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas, so converting the available CO2 to oxygen via photosynthesis would result in further cooling at the surface of Mars. Adding atmospheric elements, e.g. nitrogen, water vapour (also a greenhouse gas) or oxygen not sourced from the existing CO2, and thereby raising the atmospheric pressure, would lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect of the existing CO2, which becomes more effective at higher pressures, leading to an increase in surface temperatures. Nitrogen makes up about 70% of Earth's atmosphere - instead of nuking Mars, if you were really committed to terraforming to the extent that humans could walk around on the Martian surface without any protection from the environmental conditions, you'd need to think of a way to pump Mars' atmosphere full of the missing nitrogen. Maybe there's enough nitrogen fixed in the soil there already to do the job....

Don Pettit's Saturday Morning Science

I was just perusing the video bar top left, here, as I was making a coffee, and I found this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk7LcugO3zg&eurl=http://gfreetek.blogspot.com/ in case it doesn't come up when you're here) about drinking coffee in space, which I've decided is the thing I'd most like to do right now! Well, maybe still the whole "World Peace," thing, but "Coffee In Space," is definitely in my top 10, now.... Anyway, a few years ago I was priviledged to attend the International Space Conference when it came to Vancouver, where astronaut Don Pettit (ISS exp 6 member) presented a seminar and a series of video clips he'd made of what he came to call his "Saturday Morning Science," experiments. The 'space coffee' thing jogged my special memory of that event, and in case you haven't had a chance to see them for yourself NASA has kindly posted them for posterity. Check out the clips, there's some AMAZING stuff! http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp6/spacechronicles.html

"Is Highly Intelligent Life Commonplace In the Universe?"

(Click on the title to link to the original space.com thread that inspired this article) We really need to understand the function of evolution; it does not have a 'direction.' As such, there is no 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' species, and there is no 'end point' for evolution to reach as it is continuous and unending throughout the duration of a species' existence. Evolution is the name given to the set of processes by which species undergo changes by reproduction over time in response to prevailing conditions. Sometimes, these conditions are environmental. At such times, we can say that a species undergoing changes in response to environmental conditions is "adapting to better suit its environment." "Natural selection," is the statistical process by which individuals better suited to their environment prosper, while those poorly suited do not, leading to an increased likelihood that better suited individuals survive and reproduce more successfully and often, creating offspring that share their characteristics and improved chances at surviving and reproducing. Over generations, these characteristics can become dominant in the species set, leading to what we call evolution. The complexity of the situation is immense, with every 'act' of evolution riding on the success or failure in life of individuals in the species, and every individual reproducing successfully contributing to the form that evolution will take. Our species' tendency to oversimplify complex systems aptly demonstrates the upper limit of our own intelligence. Sometimes, however, species evolve in response to non-environmental conditions. The environment is ONLY ONE FACTOR influencing evolution, albeit a strongly influential one. We must not forget that evolution is dependent upon reproduction, so any factor that influences reproductive success within a species has to be accounted for. Ooh, yeah, baby, I'm talking about SEXUAL PREFERENCES! As pointed out, INTELLIGENCE comes in a variety of forms, and may best be defined as the ability to solve problems. The life-essential problems are relatively (by our standards) simple, like acquiring sustenance while avoiding BECOMING sustenance, finding shelter and reproductive opportunities, and our world is replete with examples of species who can solve these problems, and therefore deserve to be called "Intelligent," to this extent. At some point far short of that required to solve problems of space-flight, the level of intelligence is sufficient for individuals of a species to start making informed decisions about their potential reproductive partners. You only have to go to your nearest nightclub to test the validity of this hypothesis! As a case study in point, I'd like to cite the Irish Elk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk), for whom SEXUAL SELECTION tendencies in the species may have played a part large enough to reduce the influence of environmental factors and NATURAL selection processes in the ongoing evolution of the species, presumably leading to the decline and eventual extinction of that species. The same "Bigger Is Better," sexual preference running contrary to environmental forces is evident amongst male lions, too: their large mane, whilst serving as a symbol of mature masculinity, is a considerable handicap to the animal when hunting - their prey often see that big mop coming! Which is probably why the female of that species is the more active and successful hunter. Lions mitigate against the negative survivability characteristic of 'big hair' through social channels, i.e. the females keep their chosen males in the style to which they have become accustomed, sharing food to 'keep them sexy.' Our own species' evolution points to a similar sexual selection tendency at work, with progressive generations getting taller, even accounting for dietary changes. Again, our social structure and food-sharing habits mitigate against the negative survivability characteristic of increasing size, but this could change in the future in response to something such as a global food crisis. Our own ingenuity is an active influence in the evolution of our species, some might argue even eclipsing the strength of natural selection forces in the ongoing evolution of our species. Instead of being shaped BY our environment, we shape the environment to suit us. Of course, not all the environmental changes we have wrought are necessarily beneficial to us, and there are many problems we still need to resolve - again, often due to an oversimplified understanding of the systems we have influenced. But it's NOT all about SIZE! Many species of fish and birds have males with 'courting' attributes, e.g. brightly patterned plumage or oversized appendages which do not improve the chances of survival of individuals in terms of food acquisition or predator avoidance, but which DO improve the individual's chance of reproducing successfully. Often, we can observe a trade-off between natural and sexual selection. Which brings me to my point - why ARE humans 'more' intelligent than the other lifeforms we share this planet with? Eliminating any divine source of intelligence, and sticking to what we can demonstrate and infer from what we KNOW, rather than what we BELIEVE, quite simply, humans are intelligent because humans find high intelligence sexy! Just as with the Irish Elk's antlers and the lion's mane, sexual selection for higher intelligence within our species has led to the development of the 'Human Level Intelligence' we currently enjoy. Because we enjoy it so much, we tend to think of ourselves and any other highly intelligent species as superior and more desirable than the merely 'animally intelligent,' and in so doing we generally overestimate the importance of high intelligence in the evolutionary process. Evolution does not IN ANY WAY select preferentially for high intelligence. Individual survival and success in reproduction influences evolution, and insofar as intelligence serves these purposes it is a postive factor. However, it has yet to be proven that HIGH intelligence such as that manifested by our own species is a positive factor for survivability in the long run, or another case of unmitigatable maladaption which might lead to our own extinction, as may have been the case with the Irish Elk. How, you might ask? Well, a LITTLE knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and I have already pointed out our species' tendency to oversimplify a complex sytem. Until we have a FULL understanding of our universe there is always a risk that one of the environmental changes we instigate in the pursuit of the success of our species could run out of our control and be the death of us. There's also our remarkable ingenuity in devising new methods to DELIBERATELY kill other members of our species to be taken in to account.... So, is Human Level Intelligence (or greater) widespread in the Universe? Probably not too common, even if life is 'ubiquitous' where conditions permit it. But one thing is for sure - the chance of encountering highly intelligent life out there in the depths of space, slim or otherwise, is the driving incentive for many behind all space exploration. And why? Because it's so damn SEXY! On the bright side, we can expect that any other highly intelligent species we might encounter would have at least one thing in common with us, and what a thing to have in common! Thanks to space.com for hosting a fascinating series of postings on this issue - 170 and counting, and running for MONTHS! Thanks to Chris for the original posting, for sticking your neck out for your beliefs, and for fanning the flames of controversy to keep this thread hot for so long. And thanks to everyone who contributed. P.S.: Douglas Adams has the funniest line on the existence or otherwise of intelligent life in the universe (while we may not agree with the logic of his calculation...) "It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."

Next Door Neighbours?

Yes, we've heard about the recently discovered 'rocky planet,' (COROT-Exo-7b) and the fascinating insights it may have to offer into planet formation, but to be honest, it doesn't sound like the kind of place you'd want to set foot on. Which raises the question, "What kind of planet would people want to set foot on?" Presumably, for the sake of comfort alone, that planet would be as Earthlike as possible. Although the temptation of dipping your toes in an ammonia atmosphere appeals to curiosity, the novelty might soon wear off, and then what? The great adventure of exoplanetary exploration is finding and colonising a planet capable of supporting terrestrial life. According to this article http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nextDoorNeighbor.cfm there's a good chance (or, at least, a $100 bet) that a habitable, Earthlike planet lies in orbit around the nearest star system to our own, Alpha Centauri, at around 4.4 light years away. As far as human settlements in space go, we currently have the International Space Station with rotating crews, and some much debated possibilities of establishing settlements on the Moon and/or Mars. As an ingenious species, we've demonstrated that we are capable of travelling through environments extremely hostile to life as we know it, by 'bottling' a friendly environment, and taking it with us. Experiments like the Biosphere 2 project have deepened our understanding of what it might take to 'bottle' a whole, functioning ecosystem, humans included, and set up home in a permanently hostile environment, whether that 'bottle' take the form of an orbital space station, a lunar or martian colony, or a deep space exploratory vehicle. However, the ethics of doing so aside, we have yet to locate a destination at which it would be possible to 'uncork' such a bottle, since environmental conditions around the ISS, on the surface of the Moon and Mars could never support human life unprotected. Think 'sparse atmosphere' and 'unmitigated cosmic and solar radiation.' Even low gravity is probably bad for our health, in the long term. So, if we're really venturing out into space to establish permanent settlements, do we want to do so in a bottle that we could never truly leave, only expand in scale, or do we want to find a place to open our bottle, a planet with a dense enough, nitrogenous atmosphere (we could make our own oxygen, once we got there, if there's none there to begin with) and an active core generating a protective, magnetic field to cut out harmful levels of radiation? A place where we could, eventually, take a deep breath of fresh air, swim in a lake, bathe in the sunlight. And what if such a place were just right there, around the next star system over?

Universal Prosperity Achieved Through Sustainable Growth and Development

Fuller’s exposition of ‘ephemeralisation’ suggests the likelihood that new and faster means of transportation will be developed, making further travel and exploration possible. It is literally only a matter of time to travel to another star system, and with astronomers detecting more and more star systems with planetary bodies it is only a matter of time before we find another terrestrial type planet outside our solar system, one even more like our own planet than either Mars or Venus. At that time, the opportunity for colonisation will present itself, and the chance to increase the success of our species will be one that innumerable people in the future will owe a debt to. Fuller also suggests that people themselves are the greatest resource humanity possesses, since it is normal, individual people who work to support and sustain humanity, who dream and think and strive towards personal and social betterment. Within so many millions, one person has an idea and the conviction to change the world, whether it is a social, e.g. Ghandi/King/Ikeda, or scientific, e.g. Einstein, reform. According to this theory, and contrary to the outdated and dehumanising theory proposed by Rev. Thomas Malthus, which has since dominated geopolitical thinking and decision making, the more of us there are, the better off we will all be, and the greater the potential for the advancement of universal prosperity. The difference between Fuller’s and Malthus’ population models is that Fuller accounts for the inherent value of human life, whilst Malthus does not. A Fullerian approach acknowledges sustainable development through humanistic innovation, whilst a Malthusian approach proposes only finite resources to be divided unsustainably among nationalistic victors as spoils of war. In following Malthus’ model, it is little wonder that the policies of the governments of the nations of our world continue to be divisive and causationally riddled with conflict. At a population of over six billion, many concerned individuals, particularly those adhering to Malthusian theory, recognise the environmental impact of overpopulation, the strain placed upon planet Earth's systems by our continued habitation, resource exploitation and population growth. Perhaps it is not coincidence, but rather some biological imperative, that we have ‘ephemerally’ achieved the means, by way of extraterrestrial colonisation, to ‘spread our wings,’ to strike out and ‘leave the nest’ at a time when urban overcrowding leads to mounting tension, and is possibly responsible for increasing social problems; finite resource demands are widely perceived as valid reasons for bloody conflicts. I do not mean to imply through these available metaphors that the ability to travel in and inhabit space marks the reaching of any point of maturity by humanity on the whole. In closing, and in support of the statement that a picture says a thousand (more) words, I would like you to take a look at the attached image, top, showing a map of planet Earth's surface as conceived by R. Buckminster Fuller. His writings have had a profound influence on my outlook, and this picture, I believe, does credit to his human insight, perspective and vision. The viewer is urged to consider how close the land masses are to one another, barely separated, compared with other maps showing separation by vast oceans, and to consider what this might mean to a shared Earth and a shared humanity. I offer you my respect for your attention.

The Success of Humanity

What does it mean to be successful? From the point of view of an individual life form, successfulness may be measured in acquiring or maintaining resources for one’s use, personal survival and propagation. From the point of view of a species, successfulness is a matter of species survival, adaptation to or transcendence of environmental change and increases to population and range. Being a sophisticated and social life form, humans may deem us successful in abstract ways, e.g. in advancing our own or our families’ socio-economic status, which may be equated with resource acquisition, or in propagating a philosophy or idea, i.e. a ‘brain-child,’ rather than actual, biological propagation. Establishment of off-world colonies constitutes a species survival strategy, safeguarding the continued existence of humanity against natural or man-made disasters on Earth. Any species accompanying us off-world would also benefit from such protection. This is an extension of the strategy utilised by water and wind-borne seeding plants and fungi, where external means are taken advantage of to create a potential for increased range and population of the species, and to overcome limitations to species survival imposed by localised extinction events, e.g. forest fires, flooding or volcanic eruptions, or climate change. Within the self-mobile animal kingdom, migration fulfils the same function, and social group splitting leads to the establishment of separate colonies of diverse species from ants and bees to elephants and chimpanzees. These traits all contribute towards enhanced species survival. Through our own ingenuity, humans have established the technological means to travel between planets, and create and sustain a hospitable environment supportive of human and other terrestrial life. If we apply these means to establishing extraterrestrial colonies, we will be increasing the potential for the survival of our species in the face of even a mass extinction event, such as that which occurred at the end of the Jurassic period, where it is believed the impact of a comet or large meteorite eradicated the dinosaurs. Such things happen in the universe, and it is pure folly to assert that it could never happen to us. The longer our species survives for, the more likely it is that we will witness some form of cataclysm, and we are already approaching the average age of a species to become extinct. Human ingenuity is certainly the only mechanism by which we might prolong the normal lifespan of our species, just as human ingenuity in the field of medical science is the mechanism by which we prolong our individual lifespan against disease.

Space: The Final Frontier

We have successfully established colonies on every continent of our world, and at the time of writing there is a sizable number of people travelling through the air, under and across our seas and inhabiting remote and sometimes inhospitable outposts, rigs and stations in quest of resources, increased security or knowledge. At all times, there is a small group of people inhabiting the International Space Station in orbit around our planet. These are remarkable occurrences. Using telescopes and probes, scientists are exploring space beyond our world with celebrated discoveries, and explorations of our planetary neighbours through a series of interplanetary fly-bys, atmospheric entries and Mars landings have yielded unforeseeable gains in knowledge and understanding of the origin, nature and workings of our universe. The operations of the International Space Station, the revolutionary lunar landing and ‘moon walk’ in 1969, together with other manned space missions have lent credibility to the possibility of human colonisation, or at least visitation, of extraterrestrial environments. During George W. Bush’s second term in office, NASA was given a mandate to send a manned mission to Mars, and latest plans for the International Space Station include a re-increase to the number of personnel permanently stationed there. Whilst the immediate benefits to humanity of visiting and/or establishing colonies within our solar system might be limited to resource acquisition and fact-finding, the long term benefits to be gained by such a venture are difficult to quantify, in that they may truly be immeasurable.

A Permit to Travel

Whilst some people may argue that humans have no right to travel out among the stars until they have resolved some of the problems they have at home on Earth, I would assert that it is possible to commence such a journey in clear conscience and with due consideration if one has sufficient hope and faith in human potential to resolve such problems along the way. Without dismissing the vital importance of the problems we do now face, we should realise that existence without any problems whatsoever is neither practical nor desirable on the grander scale; whatever problems we do face will always appear greater or smaller in a subjective fashion, based on our perception of them. I would also assert that a greater degree of positivism, forward-thinking and consideration will itself prove instrumental in resolving the same problems with which people are so concerned in the first instance. In the tradition of Fuller, looking to our future with hope-filled perception, in spite of the obvious calamities and suffering that exist in our world, I see a groundswell of peaceful thinking, a growing awareness of and willingness to act upon environmental and social issues, and a renewal of respect for the dignity and potential of individual lives. I strongly encourage anyone with deep concern for the state of our world to look for such signs themselves, to be encouraged that the contributions and efforts of a normal individual can bring about change, and to become instrumental in effecting the change that they wish to see. The way to change the world we perceive is to change the way we perceive the world. Furthermore, the knowledge and experience that might be gained by undertaking such a venture is, as such ventures have always been, an investment for the future. Our greatest hope could be that a near-future humanity, at peace with one-another and united by common interests, would benefit greatly from the groundwork laid by just such an early investment. This is the same principal as establishing a pension fund at an early age; it is not a sound financial strategy to wait until all your current financial problems are resolved before considering your financial future, as it may take most of one’s lifetime to arrive at such a position, and then unable to avail oneself of the tools by which one benefits in retirement, i.e. the tools of periodic investment and compound interest, in this analogy. In the case of human exploration of space, the interest accumulated would consist of an indispensable body of experience, expertise, knowledge, supportive infrastructure and technology.

The Success of Humanity Depends Upon Manned Exploration of Space

When we look at the history of humanity, exploration stands out as a crucially influential factor on cultural and technological development. Our urge to explore is a tangible manifestation of the spirit of curiosity with which we endeavour. As inferred in the popular phrase, “Curiosity killed the cat,” our tendencies to explore and inquire can lead to considerable risk, but an element of risk is accepted to a greater or lesser degree in all our activities; generally, greater risks lead to a potentially greater reward, and our historical records are replete with the risks our predecessors have taken to achieve great successes in their lifetimes. As a useful indicator of our success, and with a deserved measure of self-congratulation, we should note that we have the largest population of any mammal on Earth, and that our habitats are the most wide-ranging. Human ingenuity has allowed members of our species to prosper in environments that could be considered normally hostile to human life; we have developed means to modify our environments, localise needed resources, and to carry our habitable environments with us, whether by simple clothing and climate control, or by more sophisticated means, such as deep sea exploration vehicles or spacecraft and stations. The famous twentieth century inventor, R. Buckminster Fuller, identified the process of ‘ephemeralisation,’ by which humans ingeniously solve and resolve the problems and limitations confronting our development, repeatedly improving and building upon what we have already established. His was a hope-filled perception of the future of our species, and a life dedicated to the universal advancement of human prosperity.