What would it cost to terraform Mars?
Claim One
What would it cost to terraform Mars?
My response: Terraforming Mars and the Limits of Engineering Optimism vs. further researching Earth and repairing any damage.
Observation
Mars has no breathable atmosphere, weak gravity, no global magnetic field, lethal surface radiation, extreme cold, and almost no accessible liquid water. These are measured facts from orbiters, landers, and rovers.
Hypothesis
If Mars could be terraformed into a human-suitable world, then current or near-future technology must be capable of altering the atmosphere, temperature, radiation shielding, and water stability at a planetary scale.
Prediction
If the hypothesis is accurate, we should be able to identify realistic engineering pathways with energy budgets within reach of global civilization and timelines shorter than many thousands of years.
Experiment and Analysis
Peer-reviewed estimates from NASA and planetary scientists show that even releasing all known CO₂ trapped in Martian soil and ice would produce an atmosphere with less than 2% of Earth’s pressure. Mars lacks a magnetic field, so any thickened atmosphere would continue to be stripped by solar wind. Rebuilding a magnetic shield would require planetary-scale engineering, likely involving continuously powered artificial magnetospheres.
Energy calculations show that warming Mars by even a few degrees would require energy comparable to centuries of total human energy production. Terraforming would also require importing volatiles or redirecting comets, each of which carries extinction-level risks and costs.
Results
Credible scientific estimates place the full cost of terraforming well above tens of trillions of dollars, rising to hundreds of trillions or quadrillions when energy, time, and maintenance are included. No existing technology can solve the magnetic field problem, which alone falsifies near-term terraforming claims.
Conclusion
Terraforming Mars is not a realistic engineering project under current physics. The cost is not a single price tag but an open-ended planetary maintenance problem. Claims that it is achievable within this century fail the scientific model.
Claim Two
Going to Mars would not cost $40 trillion.
Observation
Human missions to Mars require launch systems, life support, radiation shielding, redundancy, return capability, surface habitats, and long-term resupply or self-sufficiency.
Hypothesis
If human missions to Mars are affordable, then total mission costs, including failures, delays, and infrastructure, should be comparable to prior large-scale projects.
Prediction
If this is true, we should see cost models from independent agencies converging well below tens of trillions.
Experiment and Analysis
Apollo cost roughly twenty-five billion dollars in 1960s money, over two hundred billion today, for short lunar visits with no permanent base. Mars is vastly farther, riskier, and slower. NASA’s own estimates for limited crewed Mars missions already reach from hundreds of billions to over one trillion dollars. A sustained human presence multiplies that cost many times.
Results
Forty trillion is not required for a symbolic visit. It becomes plausible when discussing permanent settlement, continuous transport, planetary infrastructure, and long-term survival systems. The disagreement is often semantic rather than scientific.
Conclusion
A single mission does not require forty trillion. A civilization-level Mars program could easily exceed it.
Claim Three
We have been to the deepest parts of the ocean many times.
Observation
The deepest point of the ocean is Challenger Deep in the Mariana Trench.
Hypothesis
If humans and instruments have reached the deepest ocean many times, there should be repeatable depth records, video, samples, and independent verification.
Prediction
We should conduct multiple expeditions over decades, using different vehicles and nations.
Experiment and Results
This is confirmed. Crewed and uncrewed submersibles have repeatedly reached Challenger Deep. Depth sensors, video footage, sediment samples, and navigation logs exist and align across independent teams.
Conclusion
This claim is valid and supported by direct observation and replication.
Claim Four
Elon Musk massively overpromises with absurd confidence.
Observation
Musk frequently announces aggressive timelines for Mars colonies, full self-driving, and reusable launch cadence.
Hypothesis
If these claims are overpromises, timelines should repeatedly slip while partial progress still occurs.
Prediction
We should observe technological advances, but we should also note the consistent failure to meet stated deadlines.
Results
That pattern is observable. SpaceX has achieved real breakthroughs in launch reuse. However, Mars timelines have slipped by many years, and terraforming claims conflict with established planetary science.
Conclusion
Musk is effective at engineering progress but unreliable with timelines and planetary-scale claims. This is a pattern, not a personal attack.
Claim Five
There is nothing of value at the deepest parts of the ocean, or companies would drill there.
Observation
Oil extraction is driven by energy return on investment, accessibility, and market demand.
Hypothesis
If a value exists at extreme depths, it must outweigh extraction costs and risks.
Experiment and Analysis
The deep trench floor is geologically inactive for hydrocarbons—oil forms in sedimentary basins under specific pressure and temperature conditions, which are usually found on continental shelves. Deep-sea trenches are subduction zones, not oil reservoirs. There is value in biological research and mineral nodules, but extraction is currently uneconomical.
Results
The absence of drilling reflects geology and economics, not the absence of all value.
Conclusion
Oil companies did not avoid trenches because they missed something. The geology does not support oil formation there, and the cost outweighs the benefit.
Final Synthesis
Deep ocean exploration succeeds because it operates within Earth’s physics, gravity, pressure tolerance, and repair logistics. Mars fails as a comparison because it requires rewriting planetary conditions rather than exploring them. Treating the two as equivalent reflects engineering optimism rather than scientific reasoning.