From: henry@spsystems.net
In article ,
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
>>> Geologically, not long; by human standards, quite a long time -- I think
>>> the estimate is millions of years...
>> OK, but the fact is it cannot be a stable system...
>
>"Stable" on what timescale? Even a "mere" million years is pretty darned
>long on human terms !!!
Long before even one million years have elapsed, we will certainly have
the ability to manipulate Mars's atmosphere in vastly more powerful ways,
eliminating the need for natural stability.
(As for whether it's safe to rely entirely on artificial life support, we
already do that in many places. Much of the Los Angeles area has little
or no natural fresh water.)
>Indeed, no human institution has survived unchanged
>for even a couple of centuries, let alone a couple aeons.
In fact, to my mind the biggest weakness of terraforming is simply that it
takes too long. A project that lasts millennia is virtually certain to be
obsolete and no longer interesting before it is finished. Never mind the
details of holding together the project's own organization; more important
is whether it will still have *customers* at the end.
When people can walk on the surface of the Moon without external life
support (because they have internal life support), will they *care* about
terraforming Mars? That day is *not* millennia away.
A terraforming project taking a single century might be realistic. Even
that is a bit borderline, but it might be worth some investment. But none
of the near-term terraforming ideas can get results that quickly.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. | henry@spsystems.net
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
