I'm looking for scientifically plausible zones for pioneer colonies on Mars. I will have them living underground for radiation shielding, water sourcing, and geothermal for energy, so somewhere with stable regolith is needed. I like the idea of building near either Olympus Mons or Elysium Mons for dramatic views and access to lava tubes, but I also want the colonies to be safe once the northern ocean forms after terraforming. Most people seem to prefer Valles Marineris or other low-lying areas. I'd like to choose someplace unexpected, but not unbelievable. For example: would the Tharsis Plateau be too high for a plausible fledgling atmosphere? Would it be better to have them settle somewhere in a mid-altitude zone?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
8
-
1$\begingroup$ It depends a lot on many variables. Geothermal energy is tricky on Mars, so you'll want a geologically young area.marspedia.org/…. $\endgroup$– DWKrausCommented Apr 6 at 19:57
-
$\begingroup$ Unless I'm overlooking something significant about the chemistry of rocks, the only way you're getting oceans worth of hydrogen to Mars is to bring it in from outer space. That solves your water inundation problem, at least: there won't be oceans for thousands of years, because if you do it any faster, the planet will be so hot (dissipating gravitational potential energy as heat) that everyone will burn up. $\endgroup$– g sCommented Apr 6 at 20:34
-
1$\begingroup$ "I also want the colonies to be safe once the northern ocean forms after terraforming": What's the planned timeframe here? And are those colonies expected to be useful, practical structures, or are they built as eternal monuments? This is important because practically useful structures are rarely (if ever) planned for a service lifespan of more than one or at most two hundred years. If the structure needs more than two hundred years to recover its costs then maybe it is better to wait for better technology... $\endgroup$– AlexPCommented Apr 6 at 20:34
-
$\begingroup$ Imagine 100+ years of medium atmosphere creation and satellite solar heating before melting the trapped ice to create the northern sea. The underground structures would be made to last from Martian-made steel and lived in until terraforming was complete enough to live on the surface with just oxygen masks. Ultimately, the pioneer structures would be used to house refugees when the atmosphere fails from a catastrophic event. Sound plausible? $\endgroup$– CS SimpsonCommented Apr 6 at 21:39
-
$\begingroup$ Are people confined to just this one colony for the whole 100 years? Or are they expanding and, presumably, building new structures over time? $\endgroup$– CadenceCommented Apr 6 at 21:48
|
Show 3 more comments
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
This isn't the answer you want... but it might be the answer you need.
Science is a ridiculously harsh task master. Worse, it's a moving target. We learn new things every day that change our beliefs about what we can do in the future. In other words, asking us for a science-based explanation of where an unlikely location that nobody else would think of would be for a colony (that science today doesn't allow) leading to terraforming (that science today doesn't allow) is a tall order. It's also not really worldbuilding.
Worldbuilding is about embracing the ultimate SciFi goal: what if? Arthur C. Clarke was wise enough to realize that fantasy is really just another form of science that we don't understand. In fact, he pointed out that allowing ourselves to be bound by our limited understanding of science is, basically, a terrible way to write a story (see especially his second law...).[1]
In other words, the only practical answer to your question is this:
There is no location on Mars that cannot suit your needs. Each will have its strengths and weaknesses. None will be perfect. Narrative Necessity will drive some of your choices, the limits of science will drive others... the hope of what could be true will drive the choices that people enjoy reading about the most.
Why do I say that? Because a good worldbuilder will use what we understand of science today to rationalize the location he or she wishes to use. And if the job was really well done, that rationalization will cause us to stretch our imagination to wonder what science could permit if the universe were just a little bit cooler than we understand it to be today.
And what we understand, albeit a mere scratch on the surface... is whomping cool already.
Therefore, I believe you're asking the wrong questions. I have it on good authority that when the day comes that humanity can actually terraform Mars, the possibilities and limits you're talking about today won't reflect the truth of that time at all. You're asking us to give you a definitive answer to something that's still completely speculative. You should set your expectations accordingly.
In other words, good worldbuilding[2] is more about using science to drive crisis and resolution in your story than it is to "build a world." When it comes to building the world (the rules and infrastructure of your world or universe that become the framework for stories) you really should embrace the factual reality that we don't know much about the true nature of our universe at all. Without that unknown boundary — that ambiguity in understanding that drives the quest for more knowledge — you don't have a realistic world.
So, not the answer you wanted, but perhaps the answer you needed. We already know a lot about Mars today. Pick your spot, then use what we do know about science to both scare the crap out of us and leave us wondering in awe.
1 As far as I'm concerned, every SciFi author should have Clarke's three laws printed in massively bold type across the wall above their monitors. If there could be a "fundamental set of worldbuilding rules," they'd be Clarke's three laws.
2 A lot of young authors today insist on science-based stories that describe something "as realistically as possible...." I'm not a fan. If I want something that realistic I'll watch a documentary (and often do). I want my fiction to speculate about the possibilities we don't yet understand. But, honestly, that's just me.
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you, this is good stuff. I am not seeking any definitive answers, just ideas to help me imagine the right answers for my story. I am already incorporating some "out-there" tech into the story as well, but wasn't sure if choosing a "bad" location would discourage readers from picking it off the shelf. LOVE Clarke's stories, and hope my final project would interest him as a reader, too. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7 at 15:00
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
If you expect to terraform Mars and to bring oceans, the answer might be a "wandering" city. Or "leapfrogging."
Terraforming will take quite a long time. So build on a slope, starting at the lowest part. This would also bring the benefits of the thin initial atmosphere to the site. Over the decades and centuries, add buildings uphill. When the water comes, abandon the lowest portion of the city, which was designed for a different environment, anyway. Why maintain pressurized habitats if there is a shirtsleeve environment outside?
