Maybe we should try to work with earth's nature here before trying to emulate it on another planet?
Using earthworms is not new at all - this has been going on for hundreds of years in agrarian societies.
For more on this topic, please research:
- no-till farming
- polycultures (no monocultures)
- cover crops (or cover soil when not in use)
- reduce or eliminate chemical inputs
- permaculture
Try putting "monsanto" in the search field at the bottom.
Despite a lifetime of 6-9 years, though, their generation length is only a few months; if they reproduce in that radiation environment for a year or three and there aren't serious mutations, they'll probably be okay in the long run.
Edit: Plants and non-human animals wouldn’t appreciate Martian rads either.
The atmospheric pressure on the ISS is very close to 1 atmosphere, and it's an oxygen-nitrogen mix close to earth's atmosphere.
> Ugh. I feel like Wamelinks researchs importance is way overblown. Hydroponics has shown that you need no soil to grow plants, so is it really surprising that Mars soil simultant that has been specifically treated to be friendly can sustain plants and worms? Especially when the simultant might not have been very accurate chemically to begin with. Personally I think the first generations will be using heavily hydroponics, and during that period can do actual in-situ experiments that are far more informative than anything we can do here on earth.
> Direct quote from their 2014 paper (I couldn't find the earthworm paper, links would be appreciated):
> > Our results show that it is in principle possible to grow plants in Martian and Lunar soil simulants although there was only one plant that formed a flower butt on moon soil simulant. Whether this extends to growing plants on Mars or the moon in full soils themselves remains an open question. More research is needed about the representativeness of the simulants, water holding capacity and other physical characteristics of the soils, whether our results extend to growing plants in full soil, the availability of reactive nitrogen on Mars and moon combined with the addition of nutrients and creating a balanced nutrient availability, and the influence of gravity, light and other conditions.
Also, if we work out which plants kinda work, we might be able to isolate the genes that improve survival and add them to other plants.
It's not like we are going to be growing outside on Mars anyway. It will need to be under UV LEDs and solar powered. I expect the energy use of reclaiming the water from the air would be more than would be saved by trying to use solar lighting.
I like the idea of terraforming mars, but it seems like we are still going to be stuck living in bubbles anyway since it has no core or ability to block the various solar / cosmic waves that would wreck plants and animals and blast away any attempts at building a atmosphere.
The mass of the Martian atmosphere is about 25 teratonnes [1]. According to the measurements by MAVEN, the rate of mass loss by Martian atmosphere due to solar wind is 100 g/s [2]. At this rate it would take
25e12 * 1000 * 1000 * 0.01 / 100 / 3600 / 24 / 365.25 = 79 million years
Looks like if we can increase density and pressure of Martian atmosphere as GP suggested, we don't really need to worry about the lack of magnetospheric protection.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars [2] https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-spee...
http://www.space.dtu.dk/english/Research/Universe_and_Solar_...
The big issue with either growing plants on Mars or simply being exposed to Martian dust is perchlorates in the soil: https://www.space.com/21554-mars-toxic-perchlorate-chemicals...
And here I thought The Martian's most unrealistic part was growing the potatoes.
Successful species spread and thrive. Failed species are extinct -- and we will be too if we don't get off this rock.
I'm just saying there was more to learn from America than "potatoes and corn are good".
Although I would argue that some of it is common sense which is eschewed because of the thin margins. In NZ, farmers will annually replace phosphate, nitrogen, and potassium because they know it is lost to produce/erosion/environmental factors. But the same isn't true of 20+ other nutrients that make a healthy soil. Soil is like the human body which has an amazing ability to survive on just bread and water, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's all you should feed it
From the MAVEN research papers I've read, we're talking ~5,000 metric tons / yr of atmosphere being stripped.
Which is a lot, but not an insurmountable lot.
Without a magnetosphere, the atmosphere will keep being blasted off into space continuously, and it'll be impossible to terraform.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.
The issue is that the inert nitrogen has a really important role in carrying away heat from the flame. Fire is a dynamic reaction where temperature and speed is determined basically by how much heat a set of reagents produce/how much heat is carried away in the waste products. Nitrogen doesn't participate in the chemical reaction, but it gets heated alongside the waste gases, and so it reduces the temperature of the fire.
In a pure 0.2bar oxygen atmosphere, anything that would smoulder or burn slowly in standard atmosphere burn rapidly with a bright flame instead, and some things that you'd normally not consider flammable can sustain flame.
This is the reason the space station maintains a normal atmosphere instead of a thin pure oxygen one.
Conversely, if you double the amount of nitrogen (without reducing the amount of oxygen) in the air, almost nothing burns anymore.
In any event, what you'd probably do is use reflected light to filter out high energy particles.
[1] We don't actually know how to make it work. The Biosphere 2 project was a spectacular failure, and it operated with a much less difficult set of constraints.
The risk of that life snuffing out may be small, but the time cost of replacement should that happen is huge.