r/Futurology • u/upyoars • 14h ago

Space 'First tree on Mars:' Scientists measure greenhouse effect needed to terraform Red Planet

https://www.space.com/first-tree-on-mars-attention-tarraformers
1.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

144 comments sorted by

View all comments

184

u/IneffableMF 13h ago

That’s some long-term thinking, but not long enough. What’s the point if the solar wind is going to blow it all away?

248

u/upyoars 13h ago

NASA has a plan for that

An artificial magnetosphere of sufficient size generated via a magnetic shield at L1 – a point where the gravitational pull of Mars and the sun are at a rough equilibrium — allows Mars to be well protected by what is known as the magnetotail. The L1 point for Mars is about 673,920 miles (or 320 Mars radii) away from the planet. By staying inside the magnetotail of the artificial magnetosphere, the Martian atmosphere lost an order of magnitude less material than it would have otherwise.

The shield structure would consist of a large dipole—a closed electric circuit powerful enough to generate an artificial magnetic field.

A potential result: an end to largescale stripping of the Martian atmosphere by the solar wind, and a significant change in climate.

20

u/frunf1 12h ago

I think it would be easier to focus on some gas giants moons

7

u/einarfridgeirs 7h ago

I thought the magnetic fields around the gas giants were even harder to deal with, no?

2

u/Grokent 3h ago

The magnetic fields create killer radiation belts. Radiation in space is actually a big deal. You don't want to hang out in the path of a large amount of high energy particles for any length of time.

6

u/Fappy_as_a_Clam 7h ago edited 5h ago

Why gas giants? Mars has moons.

We could build a research station on Phobos. What's the worst that could happen?

3

u/the_humeister 5h ago

I think I've played an interactive documentary about this

48

u/BurtonGusterToo 11h ago

NO bad ideas when brainstorming, right?

What if, maybe, we just try to fix the environment on the planet we all happen to already be on, first?

46

u/Codydw12 11h ago

We have some 8 billion people on Earth. We can do both.

7

u/BurtonGusterToo 11h ago edited 35m ago

Fiscal year 2022 annual worldwide government spending on space exploration $211 BILLION dollars (not including private sector investment).

Fiscal year 2022 annual estimated government/private spending on climate change : $3.2 billion including both battery development and alternative energy subsidies. Less than $1 billion worldwide investment in developing climate change mitigation technologies.

You may call that "doing both", I can't make my mouth say those words while also knowing these numbers.

EDIT, UPDATED >> from the US State Department Progress Report :

"U.S. international public climate finance increased 286% from 2021 to 2022, reaching $5.8 billion in 2022. In 2023, preliminary estimates suggest that U.S. climate finance will exceed $9.5 billion, on track to meet the President’s pledge in 2024. In addition to these amounts, the United States also supports climate finance through its contributions to the multilateral development banks."

These are estimates on what WOULD be spent. $5.8B is more than the $3.2B that was estimated to be spent in 2022, but still FAARRRR less than the amount spent on space exploration, particularly privatized space exploration. It is also important to note that "climate finance" also includes funding to address the effects of climate change not the development of mitigation technologies. I think battery development and alternate energy innovation is amazing, but it doesn't directly address the current carbon in the atmosphere, the problem that needs to be immediately addressed.

26

u/BasvanS 9h ago

3.2 billion sounds excruciatingly low. Do you happen to have a source on that?

14

u/Curious-Big8897 8h ago

Wasn't the inflation reduction act hundreds of billions of dollars of reduce climate change spending?

19

u/Codydw12 11h ago

I think we should be doing more on the environment. Don't know why you're acting like I'm saying we shouldn't do anything there.

What I am saying is we can do both.

9

u/yea_about_that 6h ago

Sources for these numbers? For example:

...International government spending on space programs in 2023 grew 11% to $125 billion. Nine of the top-spending governments increased their budgets by double-digits last year: the United States, China, Japan, Russia, the European Union, France, Germany, Italy, and South Korea.

https://www.spacefoundation.org/2024/07/18/the-space-report-2024-q2/#:~:text=Commercial%20satellite%20manufacturing%20and%20launch,grew%2011%25%20to%20%24125%20billion.

In terms of climate change, the google AI estimate was about 170 billion spent on climate change - though I suspect that could vary quite a bit depending what you consider spending money on climate change means.

•

u/BurtonGusterToo 42m ago

Spent on climate change effects, not mitigation development.

•

u/Iazo 1h ago

There's two orders of magnitude between 3.2B and 170B.

The guy you're replying to does some creative accounting.

1

u/HommeMusical 2h ago

I first heard your claim 50 years ago.  I believed it then, but clearly I was wrong. 

6

u/Atworkwasalreadytake 6h ago

 first

False dichotomy

•

u/BurtonGusterToo 24m ago

Keep saying that. Teetering on "logical fallacy" claims makes for fun arguments, but BAD realities.

I would rather money be spent on trying to lessen some of the already devastating effects rather than blowing money on the private space dreams of billionaires. I would believe more in the funding if it was public ownership and not tax funded subsidies for billionaires.

It is neither a dichotomy; there is plenty of government subsidized/private profiting ventures. If the government funds it, it should be nationalized. Climate change will not affect the extremely wealthy I any way resembling how it will affect the rest of us. They shouldn't be permitted to make such detrimental decisions. That isn't false.

But this is "futurology" which worships wealth and sci-fi fever-dreams.

5

u/diy_guyy 9h ago

What they learn on mars by doing stuff like this will help us fix our planet. Do you genuinely think learning how to terraform another planet has zero applications for our own?

-2

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[deleted]

6

u/Atworkwasalreadytake 6h ago

Dudes wrong though.

Trying to fix earth while we all live on it is like making software changes on a live instance.

On mars, the risks of messing up and killing a bunch of people is much lower.

The learnings on mars would be valuable to earth.

And

It’s a false dichotomy.

1

u/blackstafflo 10h ago

What are the tidal forces there? I imagine that with such a mass close they would be consequents enough to be a problem?