Science Forums: Mars: enough sunlight for plants? - Science Forums

Jump to content

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions!
  
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help  registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Create a ScienceForums.Net Blog!
Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Mars: enough sunlight for plants? Rate Topic: -----

#1 Eclipse 


Organism

Quote

The sunlight is not bright enough on Mars to allow usual terrestrial plants to thrive, but it provides a valuable part of light energy for plants. Additional energy is necessary for lighting and heating.
From Marspedia

You know, I don't think I heard this problem dealt with once in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy... or did he? Was there some genetic tinkering to help plants adapt?

So while we might have a chance of making some sort of artificial greenhouse grow plants, is a natural ecosystem forever out of reach given there's about a third the sunlight?

Posted Image
Formerly Peak Oil Man, I'm just another burnt out peak oil activist who can see peak oil approaching. I wonder when Australians will allow the move to Gen4 nuclear reactors that are safe, cheap, and recycle nuclear waste into fuel. We could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear 'waste' alone! (See Professor Barry Brook's Youtube clip 2:35). I also love New Urbanism (2:55) and Earthships (7:31) and trains, trams, and trolley buses, but it's going to take decades to roll out a new town and transport plan. We must shut down coal fired power now. Gen4 nukes are the only way to go.
0

#2 antimatter 


Molecule
There is enough sunlight...just no water.
If we can get all that stuff up to Mars, and then get it under the ground we can make it,
after shipping hundreds of gallons of water there though. very expensive, and in my opnion, not worth it.
The more you look, the less you really know.
0

#3 Eclipse 


Organism
So really? That Marspedia wiki seemed to say there simply was not enough light for normal earth based crops and plants to grow without say, beaming extra light in via big mirrors. Remember Earth has trouble growing plants if there's just a big volcanic eruption or 2 kicking dust into the atmosphere, whereas Mars has all that extra distance from the sun permanently.

Posted Image

RE: water. Crash Phobos and ice-asteroids into Mars. It's always worth having a spare planet or 2. :eyebrow:
Formerly Peak Oil Man, I'm just another burnt out peak oil activist who can see peak oil approaching. I wonder when Australians will allow the move to Gen4 nuclear reactors that are safe, cheap, and recycle nuclear waste into fuel. We could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear 'waste' alone! (See Professor Barry Brook's Youtube clip 2:35). I also love New Urbanism (2:55) and Earthships (7:31) and trains, trams, and trolley buses, but it's going to take decades to roll out a new town and transport plan. We must shut down coal fired power now. Gen4 nukes are the only way to go.
0

#4 antimatter 


Molecule
We shouldn't even be growing plants if they have trouble growing if the sun is obscured temporarily. It shouldn't be a problem, IMHO. I know it's a fairly long distance, but I think you're underestimating the power of the sun when there's a much weaker atmosphere, not to mention the s***load of polution in our skies.
The more you look, the less you really know.
0

#5 Sayonara³ 


Icon
Doomy doom ♫
I would have thought that the rate of growth would be lowered, rather than there not being enough light for plants to grow at all. The Marspedia entry is somewhat vague!
The Dictionary is not a technical resource.
0

#6 Eclipse 


Organism
Sayonara, is Mars one of your things? You interested in how they'd terraform it?
Formerly Peak Oil Man, I'm just another burnt out peak oil activist who can see peak oil approaching. I wonder when Australians will allow the move to Gen4 nuclear reactors that are safe, cheap, and recycle nuclear waste into fuel. We could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear 'waste' alone! (See Professor Barry Brook's Youtube clip 2:35). I also love New Urbanism (2:55) and Earthships (7:31) and trains, trams, and trolley buses, but it's going to take decades to roll out a new town and transport plan. We must shut down coal fired power now. Gen4 nukes are the only way to go.
0

#7 Sayonara³ 


Icon
Doomy doom ♫
I wouldn't say it was one of my things (as in, not obsessively so), but it is an interesting topic.
The Dictionary is not a technical resource.
0

#8 John Cuthber 


Icon
Chemistry Expert
How does the level of sunlight compare between equatorial Mars and sub-acrtic Earth?

You might not get much more than tundra but it's an ecosystem. The problem is the shortage of wtaer (though we await the latest results measuring that)
0

#9 antimatter 


Molecule
A-ha!
So I was correct. I don't really think we know the difference in sunlight, but as I said before, water is a major issue,and we really can't just smash an ice asteroid into Mars...who knows the damage that could cause, it could throw it out of orbit, possibly.
We would need to ship massive amounts of water up to Mars, probably monthly!
It's all really theoretical, considering we haven't even gotten an organic life-form up there yet.
The more you look, the less you really know.
0

#10 foodchain 


Organism
I think another area you have to look at is if you could get life to sustain on mars could it via adapting come to live without assistance on such? I mean in regards to what life can live in and not is somewhat I think open to debate from just looking at the earth and what is extinct vs. what is extant. Plus if microbial like life did happen to be originating on mars at some point its lack of survival does not mean evolution at some point could not succeed on such, even if the core is dead and the planet cannot sustain an atmosphere.


Also for what its worth I think resource consumption by our species will demand an ever increasing amount of such, in which I truly doubt the earth could sustain for say millions or billions of years giving modern human issues.
0

#11 Eclipse 


Organism

foodchain said:

Also for what its worth I think resource consumption by our species will demand an ever increasing amount of such, in which I truly doubt the earth could sustain for say millions or billions of years giving modern human issues.


Being a peak oiler and "depletionist" concerned with a truly sustainable population level with sustainable resource use with renewable energy systems running on renewable materials, I agree!

But I still like to dream of Mars. Shame about the planet core being dead... big shame. Animal life couldn't exist without the magnetic field we have here, and that drastically limits the kind of ecosystem one could have.

I mean, take the earth's air... 98% of our oxygen comes from the oceans. Now, assuming we do crash a few ice asteroids into Mars (disintegrate them through the atmosphere so they don't actually 'touch down' but generate a lot of heat and water? Heat is always good on Mars)

...and assuming we warm it enough to actually have water (our extreme global warming gases, black carbon on the poles, solar iris in space?)

...what plankton could grow under that level of radiation? That's the very AIR we breath in trouble right there if plankton can't survive in Mars oceans. Dang!

Underground civilisation anyone, with lots of carefully constructed underground "mirror-light farms"? And trendy underground arcades and city centres. "New Urbanism" digging deep. ;)
Formerly Peak Oil Man, I'm just another burnt out peak oil activist who can see peak oil approaching. I wonder when Australians will allow the move to Gen4 nuclear reactors that are safe, cheap, and recycle nuclear waste into fuel. We could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear 'waste' alone! (See Professor Barry Brook's Youtube clip 2:35). I also love New Urbanism (2:55) and Earthships (7:31) and trains, trams, and trolley buses, but it's going to take decades to roll out a new town and transport plan. We must shut down coal fired power now. Gen4 nukes are the only way to go.
0

#12 lifestream 


Quark
Well, i doubt light would be a problem.
Its water AND temperature differences at day and night.
Thin atmosphere will let too much sunlight in during "day" and releases too much during night.

And dont say there is no water on Mars.
There is. Pheonix Mars lander managed to retrieve a sample of ice from soil last year.

There are traces of water on Mars - it couldnt just evaporate to space.
Most likely after big bang, trajectories were different and have been changing all the time + the fact of numerous impact craters.
After atmosphere calmed down, mars got further from the sun, water disappeared.
Id say its just trapped underground, caves or similar - water that was there had to go somewhere. And if you just research more there have been traces of possible tiny springs creating tiny rivers in the soil.

With luck , we could just find water and use it. Still we need fertilizers and other stuff just o grow anything (mars is pretty much rocks and sand Oo).

Just go and pollute atmosphere with co2 and ya got yourself a huge greenhouse (just looks red-orange).

and a small quote:

Quote

Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars with its present low atmospheric pressure, except at the lowest elevations for short periods[22][23] but water ice is in no short supply, with two polar ice caps made largely of ice

0

#13 Eclipse 


Organism
I've forgotten the name of it but aren't there super-super greenhouse gases thousands of times more powerful than CO2 that we could manufacture to really kick off some global warming on Mars? I know there is water under the soil, but I hardly see a vast frozen ocean. Look at a globe of the earth, and what do you see?

I guess if we weren't REALLY trying to actually terraform, but just to colonise in vast underground cities with mirror-lighting closed loop permaculture /hydroponics gardening, then that might be an option. But to truly terraform Mars, doesn't it need oceans, and big ones? With lots of lovely plankton emitting oxygen?
Formerly Peak Oil Man, I'm just another burnt out peak oil activist who can see peak oil approaching. I wonder when Australians will allow the move to Gen4 nuclear reactors that are safe, cheap, and recycle nuclear waste into fuel. We could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear 'waste' alone! (See Professor Barry Brook's Youtube clip 2:35). I also love New Urbanism (2:55) and Earthships (7:31) and trains, trams, and trolley buses, but it's going to take decades to roll out a new town and transport plan. We must shut down coal fired power now. Gen4 nukes are the only way to go.
0

#14 lifestream 


Quark
For oceans we need to recreate Mars-s magnetic field for its atmosphere to recover for higher surface pressure and protection against solar winds.

That would provide already some heat and opportunity for life to exist.
Polar icecaps are more then enough for us for long time if we just use Mars for sealed underground city's.
For large scale Terraform and plant life we need to restore magnetic field ( and for that we need something huge to orbit Mars - to heat up its inner core, cuz Mars is slightly too far from sun to get enough gravitational pull for that).
0

#15 Sisyphus 


Icon
Trickster Archetype
If you're just going to live underground, then what's the advantage of colonizing Mars as opposed to the Moon? It's far closer, has a much smaller gravity well, and gets even more sunlight than we do on Earth.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
0

#16 Mokele 


Icon
Giant Atomic Reptile

Quote

If you're just going to live underground, then what's the advantage of colonizing Mars as opposed to the Moon? It's far closer, has a much smaller gravity well, and gets even more sunlight than we do on Earth.


If you're just going to live underground, why even bother to leave Earth at all?
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestors' jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti
0

#17 lifestream 


Quark
Well sooner or later (unless we kill our self) we need more room and resources.
And if you look at all the movies out there, aliens usually like to attack green, water planet, Earth. So its a lot safer at Mars :D Unless you find some of those hostile thingy's @ Mars.
0

#18 Mokele 


Icon
Giant Atomic Reptile

Quote

Well sooner or later (unless we kill our self) we need more room and resources.


Yes, but why bother to go to Mars? In colonizing Mars or the Moon (or anywhere else), we need a completely self-contained, autonomous habitat.

Well, if it's completely self-contained and autonomous, does it really matter *where* it's buried?

Why drag it to Mars and braze untold hazards when we can dig a hole and put it outside of Cleveland? It still creates more living space, but costs a lot less and is far less likely to result in death if there's an airlock failure.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestors' jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti
0

#19 Sisyphus 


Icon
Trickster Archetype
Space colonization is never going to be an answer to limited room on Earth. It will take billions of dollars to send a few people to another planet, and five people are born here every second. I happen to think there are other, good reasons for pursuing a long-term goal of self-sufficient extraterrestrial colonies, but that is certainly not one of them.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
0

#20 Eclipse 


Organism
Exactly! Condoms are cheaper than space-habitats. (See population policy aside below).

But part of me longs to see the technological and systems thinking that would be required to live on Mars. (The moon would have catastrophic health effects due to the far lower gravity. Does the moon even have any water?) If we solve this world's population and sustainability problems, and one day have a world government, I'd love to see maybe 1% of the world budget doing what it could to put a colony on Mars.

(Oh no, getting idealistic again... imagine what we could do if we lived in a more peaceful world and could cut the world's military budget in half? Not only could 1% of the world budget go to space colonies, but we could solve the earth's problems. Apparently everyone on earth could have adequate food, water, adequate shelter — not McMansions, education, medical, and family planning for the bargain basement price of just 5% of the world's military budget. That's right, just 5%! Buy today and you get a FREE set of stake-knives.)

The following aside is the Sustainable Population Australia proposed population policy for the Federal government to act on. It has a higher refugee (and therefore more compassionate) immigration policy, and wants to prevent rich Australia stealing India's doctors.

Quote

http://www.populatio...tion_policy.pdf

That the Federal Government:

include a Minister for Population and Environment in Federal Cabinet, rather than a Minister for Immigration, recognising that immigration is but a sub-set of the broader issue of population;

implement an integrated population policy that is based on environmental sustainability and encompasses immigrant intake, natural increase, biodiversity protection, aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, tourism, foreign aid, internal migration, and education;

in developing this population policy, examine the consequences of different levels of projected populations and resource consumption on quality of life including affordable housing, clean air and water, and access to recreational areas such as beaches;

ratifiy the Program of Action arising out of the UN International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo in 1994;

establish and fund an Institute for Sustainability Research that will address all environmental, social and economic aspects of population;

end the use of the migration program as a mechanism to increase Australia’s population. [Ultimately, our immigration program should be no larger than emigration. A reduced immigration program should maintain the humanitarian stream as well as the spouse and the aged parent categories. When migrants are accepted for non-humanitarian reasons, most of the costs of resettlement should be born by the migrants themselves];

give higher priority to the Humanitarian Program within this overall reduced migration program, focussing on those who cannot be supported by direct aid in their own countries or in countries of refuge, and on environmental refugees, such as those from South Pacific most at risk of inundation from global warming;

ensure that, within the Skills stream, Australia imports only those with expertise not available in Australia, and does not "poach" skilled workers from developing countries that cannot afford to lose their educated citizens;

tighten visa requirements substantially, particularly in the area of information and communication technology;

adopt an integrated population, training and labour market strategy;

ensure that Australia's educational and training institutions provide all the skills needed for the functioning of the economy and for the welfare of its citizens to minimise the need to import skilled workers;

adopt social and taxation policies e.g. maternity allowances, that allow couples to provide adequately for their children but at the same time discourage them from having more than two children;

through taxation and housing policies, ameliorate the present situation where land speculators reap excessive profits from population growth;
increase Australia's overseas development assistance (ODA) to the 0.7 per cent of GDP, or more;

ensure that the family planning component within ODA is at least 4 per cent, and that greater priority is given to other measures that reduce the birth rate, particularly primary health care and the education of women;

while recognising the right of asylum seekers to enter our territory under the 1951 Refugee Convention and other international agreements, maintain measures to deter those who do not qualify as refugees under international law or measures to discourage the pre-emption of official channels for gaining refugee status;

support humane and expeditious processing of asylum seekers’ claims according to international human rights laws and agreements;

take steps to reduce our national economic dependence on tourism, recognising its vulnerability to rises in the world price of oil and the pollution caused by air and road travel;

adopt a consumption strategy that will encourage lower levels of resource and energy use while retaining a reasonable standard of living;
provide incentives for energy efficiency to reduce Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions and thus its ecological footprint;

legislate to remove the stimulus to domestic consumption by removing tax deductibility on commercial advertising;

ensure that sex education programs in Australia are adequately funded and that a wide variety of contraceptive measures are available and affordable to all who need them;

end pro-natalist policies including such initiatives as the baby bonus;

promote the education of children about ecological 27. ensure that the Precautionary Principle is applied with footprints and sustainability in general; respect to Australia’s population growth;

count New Zealanders in the official migration program, 28. reverse its decision to allow employers to recruit overseas or, where migration is positive in the direction of Australia apprentices and instead actively facilitates sufficient under the Trans-Tasman Agreement, an equivalent number is apprenticeships within Australia to adequately supply the deducted from the non-humanitarian migration program; needs of employers;

ensure that Australia's population growth meets ESD 29. prosecute and penalise employers who knowingly or principles as per the National Strategy for Ecologically negligently employ illegal immigrants. Sustainable Development (NSESD) thereby protecting ecological processes and maintaining intragenerational and intergenerational equity;

PDF with preamble included.

Formerly Peak Oil Man, I'm just another burnt out peak oil activist who can see peak oil approaching. I wonder when Australians will allow the move to Gen4 nuclear reactors that are safe, cheap, and recycle nuclear waste into fuel. We could run the world for 500 years on today's nuclear 'waste' alone! (See Professor Barry Brook's Youtube clip 2:35). I also love New Urbanism (2:55) and Earthships (7:31) and trains, trams, and trolley buses, but it's going to take decades to roll out a new town and transport plan. We must shut down coal fired power now. Gen4 nukes are the only way to go.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users