New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations via email. Please see Recruiting Topic for additional information. Write newmarsmember[at_symbol]gmail.com.

#26 Re: Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-06 15:02:55

My original line of inquiry though, went something like this:

1) The ISS has a terimination date of useful life expectancy. Is this date set by: probable orbit deterioration? probable infrastructure degradation due to the hostile environment of space? or probable obsolescence -- the toy becomes less fun to play with over time. Cause 1 can be remedied by shifting it to a new orbit and cause 3 is just psychological on our part. Cause 2 would be the only insurmountable.

2) Rather than let this $1T toy degrade into space junk or let it make a hole in the ocean on Earth, what would it take to lift it the rest of the way up out of Terra's gravity well and send it towards Venus or Mars for use as a LVO/LMO space station there? What's the cost/benefit equation look like for using it to gain a toehold on another world versus letting it go into the night and building something new from scratch?

#27 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mars Semi-Direct with Falcon » 2013-04-06 11:03:29

RobS wrote:

Dear Bryan: I agree it's possible, but it won't happen. The people who want a rover on Europa will lobby against 100 on Mars because they'll want a piece of the pie. The people who want humans on Mars will be afraid governments will stick to rovers and lobby against it. The plan is out of scale with everything else, so it'll never get approved by anyone. And there are valid arguments against sending so many rovers before you send humans; it is excessive by most standards.

But someday, when we have a colony ON Mars, 1000 rovers shall be too few.....

I understand how the politics goes. If we could get the willpower to set a budget in the $100B-$300B range and higher, then there'd be so much money to go around that the fear of being marginalised might step down a rung or two.

And I just pulled the 100 number out of thin air. The point was that, as GW said, you end up with a flags and footprints manned mission if you dont lay enough groundwork first, which means exploration and knowing what resources are where. Knowledge is power. If we dont get past being timorously inquisitive to being methodically investigative, manned missions will not accomplish much more than flags and footprints and, worse, perhaps kill the people we propose to send.

#28 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mars Semi-Direct with Falcon » 2013-04-06 10:34:05

Not even $2T could accomplish all that. And a good chunk of European, Americans and Chinese do NOT have $1k extra to devote to this. But there's maybe 1% in each of those regions who have $1M or more.

#29 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mars Semi-Direct with Falcon » 2013-04-06 09:24:42

In fifteen years, we could have somewhere between 50 and 100 rovers on Mars, with no drag on your timeline for human missions.
It's all in how much effort we as a species want to put into this. It CAN be done. It's just politics and willpower that stand in our way.

#30 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Mars Semi-Direct with Falcon » 2013-04-06 07:29:23

I've been away from these forums for a few years and see I missed some really good threads. I'd like to reinvigorate this one if others are interested. I am quoting RobS plan here, but I also was paying heed to GW's comments about career-limit radiation and the problems of getting good exploration accomplished.

At this date, we still do not know enough about Mars for a manned mission to achieve what it could achieve. Sure, we have the tech to get ppl to Mars, but we do not yet have the knowledge of Mars itself or experience on Mars to make it work as well as it might. I would like to see the success of Curiosity and Opportunity replicated about 50-100 times over before we send ppl there. The ISS was a global effort. This can be a global effort as well. We can put 100 rovers on Mars for less than $50B. (Versus the price of propping up one failed bank corporation for .... you dont want to know how much!) We should be aiming 20 rovers at Mars at each launch window over the next decade. Let them crawl all over the planet, checking out as much as possible and gathering rocks and samples. Try ballooning over Mars with black sun-inflated balloons. With each Rover payload, send along some iffier proposals to see how they work. Send along too a little bit of infrastructure for the future crewed mission to retrieve and use. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

When we DO get a manned expedition to Mars, they should go in knowing what to expect and have lots of work laid out for them in advance by the Rovers. Part of their mission should be to visit each of the 100 rovers that got there before them and collect the physical data from them, like rocks and gasses, etc. They should arirve with replacement parts for the Rovers and go in expectation of doing service maintenance on all of them so that the Rovers can continue working for another decade on Mars before the next manned mission arrives. If we can get something to Mars with the crew that's capable of lifting cargo across the Martian surface, by flight, then they could also pick up errant Rovers or dead-ended Rovers and relocate them to new territory -- shuffle our whole deck of 100 up there. We could devise a modular aerodynamic lifter of some kind which could be attached to a Rover, so that it gives the Rover wings and the Rover gives it wheels. Flying over the rough terrain makes the most sense, if we can figure out how.

In short, GW and RobS make me realise just how much more homework there is to do that we havent done yet, but could do without risking human life for a mission which would be more politics and showmanship (flags and footprints) than science.

RobS wrote:

Thank you, GW Johnson, I very much like and agree with your post. I wonder what the implications of it are.

1. How many to send to Mars. I'd favor six, if it is practical, perhaps two ships of three each. If either one had difficulties, the other one could provide for everyone, especially if parts could be salvaged from the incapacitated vehicle. When the International Space Station had only 3 on board it could do very little because it took 2 crew full time to maintain the station! I suspect a Mars base would take one or two as well, so you need a minimum of three and preferably more.

2. Establishing a series of beachheads (one every 26 months) versus establishing a "Martian McMurdo." McMurdo, of course, is the hub of Antarctic operations, and having a well equipped hub has been invaluable for Antarctic exploration (which is about 5% the size of Mars!). I think safety favors a concentration of resources at one point initially, but that also reduces the range of exploration you do at first. A McMurdo can also accumulate habs so that there is a lot of pressurized volume per crewmember.

3. Practical range of a human crew. I refer to their surface vehicles here. Zubrin proposes a pressurized rover with a range of 1,000 kilometers, but I don't think anyone is going 400+ kilometers out and back until Mars has at least two such vehicles and probably has a surface crew of more than six, for safety reasons.

4. Human/robot interaction. If we had five or six telerobotic operated vehicles (TROVs) like a second-generation Spirit and Opportunity or like the Mars Science Lab, a surface crew could supplement a terrestrial crew quite nicely because they could control the vehicles live. If each TROV had a sample bin that could eventually be retrieved, that would be even better. In my Mars novel I envisioned robotic solar powered airplanes called "Sunwings" rather like the Helios that NASA experiemented with a few years back. The astronauts would assemble the pieces of the sunwing and test the vehicles. They could be flown down to a TROV robotically and snag a long mast with a hook. The mast was attached to the sample bin, thereby retrieving the samples and bringing them back to base, where some preliminary analysis could be done. Some samples could be selected for return to earth later. There may be other ways to retrieve samples, too; Zubrin proposed a vehicle with a built in thermal rocket. The solar power on the wings would heat up a beryllium engine and a pump would compress carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Once the engine was hot and the CO2 tank full, the vehicle would run the CO2 through the hot beryllium engine and fly using the rocket exhaust perhaps 20 or 50 kilometers. It would then perform a rocket landing, examine rocks, recharge its propulsion system, and repeat. A balloon/TROV system might work as well. The idea would be to keep the crew busy inside the base with vital tasks spread out all over Mars.

5. Longer term, exploration expands via a transportation system of some kind. Maybe once there are a dozen people on Mars and considerable experience with vehicles has been accumulated, you send out expeditions to clear a track to an attractive geological site about 500 kilometers away, where you set up a small "oasis" (solar panels, Sabatier reactor, water supply, maybe a well, methane and oxygen tanks, maybe some emergency shelter and supplies). You return to base, process your samples, write up articles for Nature and JGR with a terrestrial support crew, then a few months later you go out with the equipment for a second oasis. You stop at the first oasis to refuel and do a bit a maintenance and set up a second oasis another 500 kilometers out. Perhaps sunwings drop ice blocks wrapped in plastic so you have a water supply at each one. A system like this could gradually develop a network of dirt tracks across the planet. Or perhaps larger sunwings can safely carry people and the expedition equipment can be kept out almost permanently, with crew rotation by air. But exploration strategies like this have to evolve over time as equipment improves. It may be a few people and a lot of robots will be plenty.

#31 Re: Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-05 07:48:41

That much more fuel eh? Ok, so by now everyone can see I am no rocket scientist or engineer myself, but I like to think that helps me think outside the box, right up to where reality intervenes ....

May I ask: how much gravity is still felt at the LEO altitude of the ISS? If it takes that much fuel to lift the ISS, then obviously it's not as far up the Earth's gravity well as I thought, even if we see ppl floating around there. But perhaps the real comparison is to how much fuel it would take to lift the whole ISS off Terra in its current fully-laden state? (Never mind the ballistics of it -- just the fuel for the mass over the distance to orbit against our gravity.) At an equatorial orbit, does that start wreaking havoc with the economics of getting to/from the ISS from Earth? And does that kill the idea of using aerodynamic lift to get payloads off Terra up to the ISS, as per next-gen shuttles? Probably less natural shielding out there for astronauts too.

Grrr -- why does it all need to be so difficult? LOL

#32 Re: Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-04 07:49:28

Sorry -- what's Falcon Heavy?
(edit: nvm .. ok I have read up on it. I havent been active in these forums for a cpl years, pardon me! Looks good! Commercial flights at last. Differentiated space vehicles for differentiated purposes is the way to go, plus economies of scale and finding volatiles for fuels in space!)

As regards Venus: my understanding about the space shuttle program is that NASA began working on the next generation shuttles almost before the first generation got launched and that was 30+yrs ago. The next generation is supposed to use aerodynamic lift to get it up to the edge of space and *then* kick in rockets to carry it to LEO, while the first generation used one big long glide to return to Earth and needed rockets all the way up. An aerodynamic craft capable of lifting us from Terra into LEO should function *in principle* in the cloud decks of Venus as well, for dipping down in and then back up out again. The viscosity of that atmosphere will work in our favour to give lots of lift for the wingspan, but, yes, I understand the materials of the craft's skin must resist sulphuric acid and the engines must work without oxygen .... No small problem there!

BUT: Is Mars any easier? Thin atmosphere, therefore aerodynamic transport would require enormous wingspan to body ratio plus, again, anaerobic atmosphere mostly CO2. A duststorm could flip the plane -- a big span gives wind lots to grab hold of, vs Venus where wings tighter to the body should be an advantage against wind. Mars requires more conventional rocket-powered landers trips down to the surface. And how has that been working for us? How many Mars landings have been crash landings? It's a poor track record.

#33 Re: Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-03 15:05:38

I think I agree with you .. lol. I am parsing it to try to identify similarities and differences, but I think we're on the same page. If the targets are both Mars and Venus (either/or or both), then we want to build orbiting space stations in LEO lifted up modularly in the same piecemeal fashion as the ISS we have now, for which MIR and Skylab are perhaps examples of 1-module babysteps. But we build them for shielding and g-force habitats. Then we send them away from LEO on a slow-boat to China trajectory. They can take their sweet time getting to where we want them -- 2 yrs or longer if need be. They will be big and heavy and unmanned, so no big rush really. Send the manned capsule separately much later and much much faster -- a few weeks to Venus or 4 months or less too Mars if possible. It can rendezvous with the SS and then unpack/spread out and yes, conduct multiple landings to the surface of Mars or flights through the Venus cloud decks. The SS enables the crew to live in a prepared environment in orbit, versus ekeing out something new and primitive and higher risk on the Martian surface or floating in the Venus clouds. At Venus, chemistry in the upper atmosphere might provide propellant gasses for the return flight or additional flights. At Mars, might be harder. But this converts the problem from How to get from Earth''s gravity-well at the surface to the bottom of some other gravity well and back again to How to get from LEO to low orbit over some other planet and back again. If we can master landing and returning to orbit, then gathering gasses in space and manufacturing propellant off-Earth may come in time and prove to be the long-term solution.

#34 Re: Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-03 13:33:10

Well, let's pursue this a bit farther. What do we have in Earth orbit now that could be repurposed for interplanetary travel and exploration? We talk (and whine!) about the costs of launching from Earth on a trajectory for the Martian surface. What about building a space station with artificial 1gee gravity from centrifugal motion in LEO and then sending it on a slow-boat-to-China trajectory into orbit around Venus or Mars? With modular landing craft included? If we can make 1g by artificial means and if the repositioning cruise itself does not need to be manned all the way, how far can we go? Imagine the Mars or Venus space station on a 2-3yr trajectory to its new home and then a more rapid manned flight launching much later and rendezvousing with the station in time for its final insertion into orbit around the destination planet. Once orbit has been achieved, the manned flight can stay awhile or return from the station to Earth. This is less strenuous than landing in the alien gravity well and returning from there.

#35 Re: Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-03 10:17:54

So the answer may be to build a new component with a centrifuge and shielding and then tack onto that whatever additional components in the existing ISS may be useful at Venus and launch just that grouping. I am going to say Venus b/c I know we can get there in something like 6 weeks, although getting back is a bit trickier. I am one of the people who favour going to Venus ahead of going to Mars -- we already have the technology and resources and stamina for a round-trip to Venus. Mars can build on that. In fact, most missions out to Mars have a gravity-assist from Venus near the beginning! A glider craft could skim down into the cloud decks of Venus and back out again no problem. A soletta could be attached to the ISS for its trip to Venus to see if that method for cooling is workable.

The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step. We all keep talking about the big journey to the next planets -- Mars and Venus both -- but we are mostly blind to the steps toward that goal we have already taken. One method of establishing regular contact from Earth to manned stations at Mars and Venus or a surface colony on Mars or the Moon is to establish orbiting space stations at each planet whose function will be to dip down into the planet's gravity-well and back out again with landers. That breaks down the interplanetary problem to getting from Earth's station to the Mars station or the Venus station and back again. That can be a different kind of craft.

#36 Interplanetary transportation » RePurposing the ISS » 2013-04-03 01:42:41

StarDreamer
Replies: 20

Ok so we built an ISS with a pricetag of perhaps $1 trillion and it has How many years of useful life expectancy? And then it falls into the ocean just like Mir and Skylab?

I would like to ask: what are the limitations on its useful life expectancy and are these limitations of obsolescence or limitations of wear and tear and consequently of safety and viability?

Because what would be the cost of launching the whole ISS from Earth orbit towards Venus or Mars as an orbiting space station for either of our planetary neighbours? Surely putting it in orbit around Venus is preferable to watching it burn up over the Pacific??

#37 Re: Terraformation » Cyanobacteria in Terraformation » 2007-07-07 11:25:54

Article in Point of Reference:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/ocean … full.story

I am launching this topic because cyanobacteria come up often in discussions of terraformation, but I doubt we all know what we're talking about when we mention these creatures. They come from 3 billion yrs ago on Earth, when Life was at the "chemical warfare" stage. It seems from this article that cyanobacteria are even more inhospitable to higher lifeforms than the environments into which we propose to inject them. They do reproduce bloody fast! How much help will they be, in practical reality? What can they contribute in terraformation at either Venus or Mars? (Sounds to me like they would appreciate Venus far more than Mars.) Comments?

Not sure how long this url is good for, so here is the text:

ALTERED OCEANS: A Primeval Tide of Toxins

Runoff from modern life is feeding an explosion of primitive organisms. This 'rise of slime,' as one scientist calls it, is killing larger species and sickening people.
By Kenneth R. Weiss
Times Staff Writer

July 30, 2006


MORETON BAY, AUSTRALIA — The fireweed began each spring as tufts of hairy growth and spread across the seafloor fast enough to cover a football field in an hour.

When fishermen touched it, their skin broke out in searing welts. Their lips blistered and peeled. Their eyes burned and swelled shut. Water that splashed from their nets spread the inflammation to their legs and torsos.

"It comes up like little boils," said Randolph Van Dyk, a fisherman whose powerful legs are pocked with scars. "At nighttime, you can feel them burning. I tried everything to get rid of them. Nothing worked."

As the weed blanketed miles of the bay over the last decade, it stained fishing nets a dark purple and left them coated with a powdery residue. When fishermen tried to shake it off the webbing, their throats constricted and they gasped for air.

After one man bit a fishing line in two, his mouth and tongue swelled so badly that he couldn't eat solid food for a week. Others made an even more painful mistake, neglecting to wash the residue from their hands before relieving themselves over the sides of their boats.

For a time, embarrassment kept them from talking publicly about their condition. When they finally did speak up, authorities dismissed their complaints — until a bucket of the hairy weed made it to the University of Queensland's marine botany lab.

Samples placed in a drying oven gave off fumes so strong that professors and students ran out of the building and into the street, choking and coughing.

Scientist Judith O'Neil put a tiny sample under a microscope and peered at the long black filaments. Consulting a botanical reference, she identified the weed as a strain of cyanobacteria, an ancestor of modern-day bacteria and algae that flourished 2.7 billion years ago.

O'Neil, a biological oceanographer, was familiar with these ancient life forms, but had never seen this particular kind before. What was it doing in Moreton Bay? Why was it so toxic? Why was it growing so fast?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The venomous weed, known to scientists as Lyngbya majuscula, has appeared in at least a dozen other places around the globe. It is one of many symptoms of a virulent pox on the world's oceans.

In many places — the atolls of the Pacific, the shrimp beds of the Eastern Seaboard, the fiords of Norway — some of the most advanced forms of ocean life are struggling to survive while the most primitive are thriving and spreading. Fish, corals and marine mammals are dying while algae, bacteria and jellyfish are growing unchecked. Where this pattern is most pronounced, scientists evoke a scenario of evolution running in reverse, returning to the primeval seas of hundreds of millions of years ago.

Jeremy B.C. Jackson, a marine ecologist and paleontologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, says we are witnessing "the rise of slime."

For many years, it was assumed that the oceans were too vast for humanity to damage in any lasting way. "Man marks the Earth with ruin," wrote the 19th century poet Lord Byron. "His control stops with the shore."

Even in modern times, when oil spills, chemical discharges and other industrial accidents heightened awareness of man's capacity to injure sea life, the damage was often regarded as temporary.

But over time, the accumulation of environmental pressures has altered the basic chemistry of the seas.

The causes are varied, but collectively they have made the ocean more hospitable to primitive organisms by putting too much food into the water.

Industrial society is overdosing the oceans with basic nutrients — the nitrogen, carbon, iron and phosphorous compounds that curl out of smokestacks and tailpipes, wash into the sea from fertilized lawns and cropland, seep out of septic tanks and gush from sewer pipes.

Modern industry and agriculture produce more fixed nitrogen — fertilizer, essentially — than all natural processes on land. Millions of tons of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, produced by burning fossil fuels, enter the ocean every day.

These pollutants feed excessive growth of harmful algae and bacteria.

At the same time, overfishing and destruction of wetlands have diminished the competing sea life and natural buffers that once held the microbes and weeds in check.

The consequences are evident worldwide.

Off the coast of Sweden each summer, blooms of cyanobacteria turn the Baltic Sea into a stinking, yellow-brown slush that locals call "rhubarb soup." Dead fish bob in the surf. If people get too close, their eyes burn and they have trouble breathing.

On the southern coast of Maui in the Hawaiian Islands, high tide leaves piles of green-brown algae that smell so foul condominium owners have hired a tractor driver to scrape them off the beach every morning.

On Florida's Gulf Coast, residents complain that harmful algae blooms have become bigger, more frequent and longer-lasting. Toxins from these red tides have killed hundreds of sea mammals and caused emergency rooms to fill up with coastal residents suffering respiratory distress.

North of Venice, Italy, a sticky mixture of algae and bacteria collects on the Adriatic Sea in spring and summer. This white mucus washes ashore, fouling beaches, or congeals into submerged blobs, some bigger than a person.

Along the Spanish coast, jellyfish swarm so thick that nets are strung to protect swimmers from their sting.

Organisms such as the fireweed that torments the fishermen of Moreton Bay have been around for eons. They emerged from the primordial ooze and came to dominate ancient oceans that were mostly lifeless. Over time, higher forms of life gained supremacy. Now they are under siege.

Like other scientists, Jeremy Jackson, 63, was slow to perceive this latest shift in the biological order. He has spent a good part of his professional life underwater. Though he had seen firsthand that ocean habitats were deteriorating, he believed in the resilience of the seas, in their inexhaustible capacity to heal themselves.

Then came the hurricane season of 1980. A Category 5 storm ripped through waters off the north coast of Jamaica, where Jackson had been studying corals since the late 1960s. A majestic stand of staghorn corals, known as "the Haystacks," was turned into rubble.

Scientists gathered from around the world to examine the damage. They wrote a paper predicting that the corals would rebound quickly, as they had for thousands of years.

"We were the best ecologists, working on what was the best-studied coral reef in the world, and we got it 100% wrong," Jackson recalled.

The vividly colored reef, which had nurtured a wealth of fish species, never recovered.

"Why did I get it wrong?" Jackson asked. He now sees that the quiet creep of environmental decay, occurring largely unnoticed over many years, had drastically altered the ocean.

As tourist resorts sprouted along the Jamaican coast, sewage, fertilizer and other nutrients washed into the sea. Overfishing removed most of the grazing fish that kept algae under control. Warmer waters encouraged bacterial growth and further stressed the corals.

For a time, these changes were masked by algae-eating sea urchins. But when disease greatly reduced their numbers, the reef was left defenseless. The corals were soon smothered by a carpet of algae and bacteria. Today, the reef is largely a boneyard of coral skeletons.

Many of the same forces have wiped out 80% of the corals in the Caribbean, despoiled two-thirds of the estuaries in the United States and destroyed 75% of California's kelp forests, once prime habitat for fish.

Jackson uses a homespun analogy to illustrate what is happening. The world's 6 billion inhabitants, he says, have failed to follow a homeowner's rule of thumb: Be careful what you dump in the swimming pool, and make sure the filter is working.

"We're pushing the oceans back to the dawn of evolution," Jackson said, "a half-billion years ago when the oceans were ruled by jellyfish and bacteria."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 55-foot commercial trawler working the Georgia coast sagged under the burden of a hefty catch. The cables pinged and groaned as if about to snap.

Working the power winch, ropes and pulleys, Grovea Simpson hoisted the net and its dripping catch over the rear deck. With a tug on the trip-rope, the bulging sack unleashed its massive load.

Plop. Splat. Whoosh. About 2,000 pounds of cannonball jellyfish slopped onto the deck. The jiggling, cantaloupe-size blobs ricocheted around the stern and slid down an opening into the boat's ice-filled hold.

The deck was streaked with purple-brown contrails of slimy residue; a stinging, ammonia-like odor filled the air.

"That's the smell of money," Simpson said, all smiles at the haul. "Jellyballs are thick today. Seven cents a pound. Yes, sir, we're making money."

Simpson would never eat a jellyfish. But shrimp have grown scarce in these waters after decades of intensive trawling. So during the winter months when jellyfish swarm, he makes his living catching what he used to consider a messy nuisance clogging his nets.

It's simple math. He can spend a week at sea scraping the ocean bottom for shrimp and be lucky to pocket $600 after paying for fuel, food, wages for crew and the boat owner's cut.

Or, in a few hours of trawling for jellyfish, he can fill up the hold, be back in port the same day and clear twice as much. The jellyfish are processed at the dock in Darien, Ga., and exported to China and Japan, where spicy jellyfish salad and soup are delicacies.

"Easy money," Simpson said. "They get so thick you can walk on them."

Jellyfish populations are growing because they can. The fish that used to compete with them for food have become scarce because of overfishing. The sea turtles that once preyed on them are nearly gone. And the plankton they love to eat are growing explosively.

As their traditional catch declines, fishermen around the world now haul in 450,000 tons of jellyfish per year, more than twice as much as a decade ago.

This is a logical step in a process that Daniel Pauly, a fisheries scientist at the University of British Columbia, calls "fishing down the food web." Fishermen first went after the largest and most popular fish, such as tuna, swordfish, cod and grouper. When those stocks were depleted, they pursued other prey, often smaller and lower on the food chain.

"We are eating bait and moving on to jellyfish and plankton," Pauly said.

In California waters, for instance, three of the top five commercial catches are not even fish. They are squid, crabs and sea urchins.

This is what remains of California's historic fishing industry, once known for the sardine fishery attached to Monterey's Cannery Row and the world's largest tuna fleet, based in San Diego, which brought American kitchens StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea.

Overfishing began centuries ago but accelerated dramatically after World War II, when new technologies armed industrial fleets with sonar, satellite data and global positioning systems, allowing them to track schools of fish and find their most remote habitats.

The result is that the population of big fish has declined by 90% over the last 50 years.

It's reached the point that the world's fishermen, though more numerous, working harder and sailing farther than ever, are catching fewer fish. The global catch has been declining since the late 1980s, an analysis by Pauly and colleague Reg Watson showed.

The reduction isn't readily apparent in the fish markets of wealthy countries, where people are willing to pay high prices for exotic fare from distant oceans — slimeheads caught off New Zealand and marketed as orange roughy, or Patagonian toothfish, renamed Chilean sea bass. Now, both of those fish are becoming scarce.

Fish farming also exacts a toll. To feed the farmed stocks, menhaden, sardines and anchovies are harvested in great quantities, ground up and processed into pellets.

Dense schools of these small fish once swam the world's estuaries and coastal waters, inhaling plankton like swarming clouds of silvery vacuum cleaners. Maryland's Chesapeake Bay, the nation's largest estuary, used to be clear, its waters filtered every three days by piles of oysters so numerous that their reefs posed a hazard to navigation. All this has changed.

There and in many other places, bacteria and algae run wild in the absence of the many mouths that once ate them. As the depletion of fish allows the lowest forms of life to run rampant, said Pauly, it is "transforming the oceans into a microbial soup."

Jellyfish are flourishing in the soup, demonstrating their ability to adapt to wholesale changes — including the growing human appetite for them. Jellyfish have been around, after all, at least 500 million years, longer than most marine animals.

In the Black Sea, an Atlantic comb jelly carried in the ballast water of a ship from the East Coast of the United States took over waters saturated with farm runoff. Free of predators, the jellies gorged on plankton and fish larvae, depleting the fisheries on which the Russian and Turkish fleets depend. The plague subsided only with the accidental importation of another predatory jellyfish that ate the comb jellies.

Federal scientists tallied a tenfold increase in jellies in the Bering Sea in the 1990s. They were so thick off the Alaskan Peninsula that fishermen nicknamed it the Slime Bank. Researchers have found teeming swarms of jellyfish off Georges Bank in New England and the coast of Namibia, in the fiords of Norway and in the Gulf of Mexico. Also proliferating is the giant nomurai found off Japan, a jellyfish the size of a washing machine.

Most jellies are smaller than a fist, but their sheer numbers have gummed up fishing nets, forced the shutdown of power plants by clogging intake pipes, stranded cruise liners and disrupted operations of the world's largest aircraft carrier, the Ronald Reagan.

Of the 2,000 or so identified jellyfish species, only about 10 are commercially harvested. The largest fisheries are off China and other Asian nations. New ones are springing up in Australia, the United States, England, Namibia, Turkey and Canada as fishermen look for ways to stay in business.

Pauly, 60, predicts that future generations will see nothing odd or unappetizing about a plateful of these gelatinous blobs. "My kids," Pauly said, "will tell their children: Eat your jellyfish."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dark water spun to the surface like an undersea cyclone. From 80 feet below, the swirling mixture of partially treated sewage spewed from a 5-foot-wide pipe off the coast of Hollywood, Fla., dubbed the "poop chute" by divers and fishermen. Fish swarmed at the mouth — blue tangs and chubs competing for particles in the wastewater.

Marine ecologist Brian Lapointe and research assistant Rex "Chip" Baumberger, wearing wetsuits and breathing air from scuba tanks, swam to the base of the murky funnel cloud to collect samples. The effluent meets state and federal standards but is still rich in nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients.

By Lapointe's calculations, every day about a billion gallons of sewage in South Florida are pumped offshore or into underground aquifers that seep into the ocean. The wastewater feeds a green tide of algae and bacteria that is helping to wipe out the remnants of Florida's 220 miles of coral, the world's third largest barrier reef. In addition, fertilizer washes off sugar cane fields, livestock compounds and citrus farms into Florida Bay.

"You can see the murky green water, the green pea soup loaded with organic matter," said Lapointe, a marine biologist at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in Fort Pierce, Fla. "All that stuff feeds the algae and bacterial diseases that are attacking corals."

Government officials thought they were helping in the early 1990s when they released fresh water that had been held back by dikes and pumps for years. They were responding to the recommendations of scientists who, at the time, blamed the decline of ocean habitats on hypersalinity — excessively salty seawater.

The fresh water, laced with farm runoff rich in nitrogen and other nutrients, turned Florida's gin-clear waters cloudy. Seaweed grew fat and bushy.

It was a fatal blow for many struggling corals, delicate animals that evolved to thrive in clear, nutrient-poor saltwater. So many have been lost that federal officials in May added what were once the two most dominant types — elkhorn and staghorn corals — to the list of species threatened with extinction. Officials estimate that 97% of them are gone.

Sewage and farm runoff kill corals in various ways. Algae blooms deny them sunlight essential for their survival. The nutrients in sewage and fertilizer make bacteria grow wildly atop corals, consuming oxygen and suffocating the animals within.

A strain of bacteria found in human intestines, Serratia marcescens, has been linked to white pox disease, one of a host of infectious ailments that have swept through coral reefs in the Florida Keys and elsewhere.

The germ appears to come from leaky septic tanks, cesspits and other sources of sewage that have multiplied as the Keys have grown from a collection of fishing villages to a stretch of bustling communities with 80,000 year-round residents and 4 million visitors a year.

Scientists discovered the link by knocking on doors of Keys residents, asking to use their bathrooms. They flushed bacteria marked with tracers down toilets and found them in nearby ocean waters in as little as three hours.

Nearly everything in the Keys seems to be sprouting green growths, even an underwater sculpture known as Christ of the Abyss, placed in the waters off Key Largo in the mid-1960s as an attraction for divers and snorkelers. Dive-shop operators scrub the bronze statue with wire brushes from time to time, but they have trouble keeping up with the growth.

Lapointe began monitoring algae at Looe Key in 1982. He picked the spot, a 90-minute drive south of Key Largo, because its clear waters, colorful reef and abundance of fish made it a favorite site for scuba divers. Today, the corals are in ruins, smothered by mats of algae.

Although coral reefs cover less than 1% of the ocean floor, they are home to at least 2 million species, or about 25% of all marine life. They provide nurseries for fish and protect oceanfront homes from waves and storm surges.

Looe Key was once a sandy shoal fringed by coral. The Key has now slipped below the water's surface, a disappearing act likely to be repeated elsewhere in these waters as pounding waves breach dying reefs. Scientists predict that the Keys ultimately will have to be surrounded by sea walls as ocean levels rise.

With a gentle kick of his fins through murky green water, Lapointe maneuvered around a coral mound that resembled the intricate, folded pattern of a brain. Except that this brain was being eroded by the coralline equivalent of flesh-eating disease.

"It rips my heart out," Lapointe said. "It's like coming home and seeing burglars have ransacked your house, and everything you cherished is gone."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ancient seas contained large areas with little or no oxygen — anoxic and hypoxic zones that could never have supported sea life as we know it. It was a time when bacteria and jellyfish ruled.

Nancy Rabalais, executive director of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, has spent most of her career peering into waters that resemble those of the distant past.

On research dives off the Louisiana coast, she has seen cottony white bacteria coating the seafloor. The sulfurous smell of rotten eggs, from a gas produced by the microbes, has seeped into her mask. The bottom is littered with the ghostly silhouettes of dead crabs, sea stars and other animals.

The cause of death is decaying algae. Fed by millions of tons of fertilizer, human and animal waste, and other farm runoff racing down the Mississippi River, tiny marine plants run riot, die and drift to the bottom. Bacteria then take over. In the process of breaking down the plant matter, they suck the oxygen out of seawater, leaving little or none for fish or other marine life.

Years ago, Rabalais popularized a term for this broad area off the Louisiana coast: the "dead zone." In fact, dead zones aren't really dead. They are teeming with life — most of it bacteria and other ancient creatures that evolved in an ocean without oxygen and that need little to survive.

"There are tons and tons of bacteria that live in dead zones," Rabalais said. "You see this white snot-looking stuff all over the bottom."

Other primitive life thrives too. A few worms do well, and jellyfish feast on the banquet of algae and microbes.

The dead zone off Louisiana, the second largest after one in the Baltic Sea, is a testament to the unintended consequences of manufacturing nitrogen fertilizer on a giant scale to support American agriculture. The runoff from Midwestern farms is part of a slurry of wastewater that flows down the Mississippi, which drains 40% of the continental United States.

The same forces at work in the mouth of the Mississippi have helped create 150 dead zones around the world, including parts of the Chesapeake Bay and waters off the Oregon and Washington coasts.

About half of the Earth's landscape has been altered by deforestation, farming and development, which has increased the volume of runoff and nutrient-rich sediment.

Most of the planet's salt marshes and mangrove forests, which serve as a filter between land and sea, have vanished with coastal development. Half of the world's population lives in coastal regions, which add an average of 2,000 homes each day.

Global warming adds to the stress. A reduced snowpack from higher temperatures is accelerating river discharges and thus plankton blooms. The oceans have warmed slightly — 1 degree on average in the last century. Warmer waters speed microbial growth.

Robert Diaz, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, has been tracking the spread of low-oxygen zones. He has determined that the number is nearly doubling every decade, fed by a worldwide cascade of nutrients — or as he puts it, energy. We stoke the ocean with energy streaming off the land, he said, and with no clear pathways up the food chain, this energy fuels an explosion of microbial growth.

These microbes have been barely noticeable for millions of years, tucked away like the pilot light on a gas stove. "Now," Diaz said, "the stove has been turned on."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Australia, fishermen noticed the fireweed around the time much of Moreton Bay started turning a dirty, tea-water brown after every rain. The wild growth smothered the bay's northern sea-grass beds, once full of fish and shellfish, under a blanket a yard thick.

The older, bottom layers of weed turned grayish-white and started to decay. Bacteria, feeding on the rot, sucked all of the oxygen from beneath this woolly layer at night. Most sea life swam or scuttled away; some suffocated. Fishermen's catches plummeted.

Most disturbing were the rashes, an outbreak often met with scoffs from local authorities.

After suffering painful skin lesions, fisherman Greg Savige took a sealed bag of the weed in 2000 to Barry Carbon, then director-general of the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. He warned Carbon to be careful with it, as it was "toxic stuff." Carbon replied that he knew all about cyanobacteria from western Australian waters and that there was nothing to worry about.

Then he opened the bag and held it close to his face for a sniff. "It was like smearing hot mustard on the lips," the chastened official recalled.

Aboriginal fishermen had spotted the weed in small patches years earlier, but it had moved into new parts of the bay and was growing like never before.

Each spring, Lyngbya bursts forth from spores on the seafloor and spreads in dark green-and-black dreadlocks. It flourishes for months before retreating into the muck. Scientists say it produces more than 100 toxins, probably as a defense mechanism.

At its peak in summer, the weed now covers as much as 30 square miles of Moreton Bay, an estuary roughly the size of San Francisco Bay. In one seven-week period, its expansion was measured at about 100 square meters a minute — a football field in an hour.

William Dennison, then director of the University of Queensland botany lab, couldn't believe it at first.

"We checked this 20 times. It was mind-boggling. It was like 'The Blob,' " Dennison said, recalling the 1950s horror movie about an alien life form that consumed everything in its path.

Suspecting that nutrients from partially treated sewage might be the culprit, another Queensland University scientist, Peter Bell, collected some wastewater and put it in a beaker with a pinch of Lyngbya. The weed bloomed happily.

As Brisbane and the surrounding area became the fastest growing region in Australia, millions of gallons of partially treated sewage gushed from 30 wastewater treatment plants into the bay and its tributary rivers.

Officials upgraded the sewage plants to remove nitrogen from the wastewater, but it did not stop the growth of the infernal weed.

Researchers began looking for other sources of Lyngbya's nutrients, and are now investigating whether iron and possibly phosphorous are being freed from soil as forests of eucalyptus and other native trees are cleared for farming and development.

"We know the human factor is responsible. We just have to figure out what it is," Dennison said.

Recently, Lyngbya has appeared up the coast from Moreton Bay, on the Great Barrier Reef, where helicopters bring tourists to a heart-shaped coral outcropping. When the helicopters depart, seabirds roost on the landing platform, fertilizing the reef with their droppings. Lyngbya now beards the surrounding corals.

"Lyngbya has lots of tricks," said scientist Judith O'Neil. "That's why it's been around for 3 billion years."

It can pull nitrogen out of the air and make its own fertilizer. It uses a different spectrum of sunlight than algae do, so it can thrive even in murky waters. Perhaps its most diabolical trick is its ability to feed on itself. When it dies and decays, it releases its own nitrogen and phosphorous into the water, spurring another generation of growth.

"Once it gets going, it's able to sustain itself," O'Neil said.

Ron Johnstone, a University of Queensland researcher, recently experienced Lyngbya's fire. He was studying whether iron and phosphorous in bay sediments contribute to the blooms, and he accidentally came in contact with bits of the weed. He broke out in rashes and boils, and needed a cortisone shot to ease the inflammation.

"It covered my whole chest and neck," he said. "We've just ordered complete containment suits so we can roll in it."

Fishermen say they cannot afford such pricey equipment. Nor would it be practical. For some, the only solution is to turn away from the sea.

Lifelong fisherman Mike Tanner, 50, stays off the water at least four months each year to avoid contact with the weed. It's an agreement he struck with his wife, who was appalled by his blisters and worried about the long-term health consequences.

"When he came home with rash all over his body," Sandra Tanner said, "I said, 'No, you are not going.' We didn't know what was happening to him." Tanner, a burly, bearded man, is frustrated that he cannot help provide for his family. Gloves and other waterproof gear failed to protect him. "It's like acid," Tanner said. "I couldn't believe it. It kept pulling the skin off."

Before the Lyngbya outbreak, 40 commercial shrimp trawlers and crab boats worked these waters. Now there are six, and several of them sit idle during fireweed blooms.

"It's the only thing that can beat us," Greg Savige said. "Wind is nothing. Waves, nothing. It's the only thing that can make us stop work. When you've got sores and the skin peels away, what are you going to do?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Usha Lee McFarling contributed to this report.

#38 Re: Terraformation » Iceteroids: What happens when they get to Mars? » 2007-07-07 02:03:35

re: shooting carbon at the poles ....

Carbon black on ice creates microclimate for melting the ice. The carbon sinks into the glacier as it melts, creating pits. I think Martian glaciers are heavily pitted already from local dust settling on them. As soon as the carbon sinks out of "line of sight" to the Sun, melting slows and stops. So shooting carbon bullets at the poles cannot work except for the little boost at impact. What you end up doing is interring all your precious carbon into the ice, never to be seen again.

#39 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming the Earth’s great Deserts - Turning the Sahara into a rainforest. » 2007-07-04 10:07:19

Human industry has initiated two contrary processes in our climate. One is global warming from production of greenhouse gasses. The other is global dimming from the spread of aerosol particulate matter (soots) which reduce insolation at the surface. We have all heard a lot about global warming, so let's explore the global dimming problem.

Global dimming was first noticed in the 1950s and 1960s. Soot blocks out the Sun and, while it may increase heat in the atmosphere (soot is dark), atmosphere is a poor retainer of that heat over time (compared to the rocks at surface or the heatsink of the oceans). It also frustrates the condensation of raindrops out of vapour by attracting condensation to the soot surfaces, but at a density too low to precipitate. The result is more cloud cover but less rain. This increases overall albedo, thus reducing temperatures, and blots out more sunlight, thus further reducing insolation. But it also spawns droughts and famines, such as what has been seen in Ethiopia and Somalia and across the Sahel, in California and in North Korea. The height of these famines in the 1980s and 1990s coincided with the height of global dimming. Mount Pinatubo did not help much either.

There is evidence that global dimming has turned a corner and reversed. The collapse of dirty industries in the East Bloc (Poland, Romania, Russia) has reduced airborne pollutants considerably. So long as China does not become too dirty in its turn, global dimming should remain on the wane.

But this shall also further expose the problem of global warming because now insolation is on the rise with the greenhouse gasses. But increased evaporation will bring increased rainfall, so long as the airborne soot does not frustrate droplet formation.

I wonder if the desert zone shall move north into Europe and the Sahara shall bloom again? If increased rainfall does bring about a greener Earth and not just erosion, then an enlarged biosphere shall hold more water. Just think if the Sahara were forested, how much carbon and how much water that would take out of the system and contribute to restoring equilbrium! If human activity is accelerating the carbon cycle and forcing carbon back into circulation at an unnatural pace (by digging it up and burning it) then the best response of the planet Gaia would be to meet our efforts by increasing those processes which take carbon out of the system -- namely plant growth.

By the way, there is some evidence that what prompted the current cycle of Ice Ages was the closing of the isthmus of Panama. Those mountains of central america isolated the Pacific from the Atlantic and reduced the flow of the Great Conveyor Belt (Gulf Stream), thereby making it more vulnerable to Arctic meltwater. If we ever lurch towards a new Ice Age (by stalling out the Conveyor), then the response should be to blast a channel through either Panama or Nicaragua to restore that communication of the waters.

#40 Re: Terraformation » Iceteroids: What happens when they get to Mars? » 2007-07-04 09:10:06

If you melded a few iceteroids into Phobos and/or Deimos, what effect would this additional mass have on the moons? Would it decay their orbits or raise their orbits? It might depend on the ballistics of the "meld".

I wonder if you could migrate the orbits towards each other, by adding inertia to the one and subtracting it from the other, until the two moons collided in orbit.....

#41 Re: Terraformation » Angular Momentum and Planetary Dynamos » 2007-06-19 05:47:17

On Mars, the Tharsis region provides the balancing effect that is provided by the moon on Earth.  The Tharsis bulge always aligns itself on the equator, effectively stabilising the planet.

How great a deformation of the sphere does the Tharsis bulge create? I know this is where the volcanoes are, but is there further deformation  additional to the volcano mounts?

Is there a large impact crater at the antipodes?

On Earth, I always suspected things like the Siberian Traps or the Deccan Traps might be triggered by impacts on the opposing side of the planet. The waves of energy will refocus there. It is known, for example, that atomic bomb tests by France in the south Pacific would provoke a small earthquake in France itself because it is at their antipodes.

#42 Re: Terraformation » Opinions on My Terraformed Mars texture » 2007-06-18 21:30:30

Dryson;
Way up in northern Canada, there's this line on the maps called "the tree line". The tree line marks the boundary of the tree form of vegetation. It is a real line. You can walk right up to it and see trees here, no trees there. And the trees that subsist on the tree side of the tree line? For the first few miles, they are  not very impressive trees -- stunted, twisted, misshapen by the wind, tortured and very very very slow growing. Nature's bonsai. You can see the tree line on the slopes of high mountains too. The Alps have a tree line -- I have crossed this line in Switzerland and seen it. The Rockies also have a tree line.

Okay. Mars is absolutely wholly and completely 100% no exceptions NORTH of this tree line. Which would be the wrong side of the line for your purposes. Which is why we cannot turn life loose on Mars and not expect it to all freeze stiff inside of two minutes.

But let's talk about this. How about lichens?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichen

Lichens are often the first to settle in places lacking soil, constituting the sole vegetation in some extreme environments such as those found at high mountain elevations and at high latitudes. Some survive in the tough conditions of deserts, and others on frozen soil of the arctic regions. Recent ESA research shows that lichen can even endure extended exposure to space. Some lichens have the aspect of leaves (foliose lichens); others cover the substratum like a crust (crustose lichens); others adopt shrubby forms (fruticose lichens); and there are gelatinous lichens.

The European Space Agency has discovered that lichens can survive unprotected in space. In an experiment led by Leopoldo Sancho from the Complutense University of Madrid, two species of lichen – Rhizocarpon geographicum and Xanthoria elegans – were sealed in a capsule and launched on a Russian Soyuz rocket on 31 May 2005. Once in orbit the capsules were opened and the lichens were directly exposed to the vacuum of space with its widely fluctuating temperatures and cosmic radiation. After 15 days the lichens were brought back to earth and were found to be in full health with no discernible damage from their time in orbit.

Okay, so this looks very encouraging. It may indeed be possible for lichens to survive on Mars and lichens are a symbiosis of fungi and algae. But "survive" is not "flourish". Even in the Arctic, it takes a lichen colony a good 100yrs to cover over a decent-sized rock. So a lichen colony on Mars would need centuries and centuries to register any lasting change in its environment. Unless we propose to send several tonnes of lichen to Mars every year for 100yrs.

#43 Re: Terraformation » Combination of gases » 2007-06-18 21:16:45

Mars would be a great spot for a coffee plantation. At harvest time, you can open up the greenhouse dome and have your beans roasted by the radiation, freeze-dried by the cold and pulverised by the sand-storms, all inside of about five minutes.

#44 Re: Terraformation » Terraforming the Earth’s great Deserts - Turning the Sahara into a rainforest. » 2007-06-18 20:44:53

Any thoughts on what effect turning the Sahara into a mixture of lakes, grassland, forest, and agriculture would have on earth's albedo?

The greening of the Sahara would create a new ecological carbon sink to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, thereby lowering overall temperature. The greenery would also hold a lot of water, but I have no idea how much.

#45 Re: Terraformation » Opinions on My Terraformed Mars texture » 2007-06-17 16:45:23

Dryson;

We all understand how an ecosystem works.

How do you propose to keep your stand of 100 trees alive for 10000yrs while they make oxygen? The problem is not the chemical process. The problem is the scale of the project and the vast distances involved.

Planetary climates have equilibria. Earth's equilibrium is friendly to the life which has evolved here and the life which has evolved here has in no small way contributed to establishing this equilibrium. But Earth has been in other equilibria in the past, including a snowball phase of global ice and tropical phase of frost-free polar regions. Earth may revisit either of these in the future. Venus is resting at an equilibrium as well and it will take a tremendous, stupendous effort to push the planet out of that equilibrium and into a new one. Same for Mars -- it is in an equilibrium state. The gasses which could benefit its climate are locked in ice and soils. The planet can only warm up by the release of those gasses and those gasses shall never be released so long as the planet remains cold. Absence of liquid water deters life; absence of life deters elemental cycles; absence of elemental cycles of oxygen and carbon and water caps potential for change and so forth. It is both a vicious circle and a virtuous circle -- virtuous from its own point of view because it is content to be as it is (it is in equilibrium), but vicious from our point of view, simply because it is not as we would like it to be. But that is our problem, not Mars' problem.

In a nutshell, it is a "chicken and egg" problem and it cannot be so easily reduced to such a simple solution. Which is the chicken and which is the egg? I don't think we have even gotten so far as that.

#46 Re: Terraformation » Opinions on My Terraformed Mars texture » 2007-06-17 09:21:57

Dryson;

The wrench in this idea of trees on Mars is the temperature -- about 80 below in most places at least at night. So I don't think sequoias or dawn redwoods will do well there. We will have to be very selective about which trees we take -- just Antarctic species, zone Zero-A.

Trees depend on water. If the water freezes, the tree dies. Sugars can change the freezing point of water, but not enough to permit life on Mars. Also, no soil -- the "soil" on Mars is inorganic. Really just pulverised beach sand, like the Sahara.

I wonder if you could catch CO2 in the liquid state between solid and gas and then dissolve sugars into the liquid CO2, to change its triple point curve and allow it to remain liquid in the veins of trees -- CO2 sap.

#47 Re: Terraformation » Floating Venusian cities or Venus vs Mars vs Titan revisited » 2007-06-15 11:00:19

I am wondering if there might be some unrecognised process at work in the protoplanetary nebula of a solar system which directs elements in different directions.

Interesting idea. It's also known that the solar system is a reverse centrefuge: planets closer to the sun have greater density. However, it's not a perfect pattern. The bottom of this web page has a list of planetary density, the highest is Mercury and the lowest is Saturn, but Uranus is higher than Saturn and Neptune is higher than Uranus. In fact Neptune is the most dense of the gas giants. Why do the 8 major planets follow this pattern?

Interesting. Just for the fun of it, I did some calculations to figure out the mean density of the Earth-Luna binary and got 5.472 g/cm3. The combined mass of Earth and Luna is 6.0494e24kg. The density of Earth is 5.515g/cm3 which is 5515kg/m3 for a total volume therefore of 1.0835e21 cubic metres. Doing the same math for Luna gives it a total volume of 2.2002e19m3. You add the two volumes together and divide into the total mass and get an average density. I wondered if this might drop the denisty below the figure for Venus (5250kg/m3) but no such luck.

My guess would be that Jupiter is coveval with the Sun itself and therefore was able to accumulate hydrogen before the Sun's own furnace kicked in and dominated. Within the orbit of Jupiter, the Sun absorbed lighter elements and this is truer the closer to the Sun we get. So Mercury got stripped of anything lighter than sulphur or calcium or silicon or thereabouts, but Mercury may have a surpisingly robust core full of iron and lead and uranium (and, yes, it does have a magnetic field). Venus may have lots of light true metals, like tin and aluminum, but be hydrogen poor (yup!). Earth was able to gather light elements and keep them. Mars may have more than we think, but Mars faced a different problem -- it accreted slowly and so got a late start, perhaps, or had to fend off Jupiter as well.

Neptune may be denser because it picked up infalling material from the KB. I am curious about Saturn. Which is older --- Saturn or Jupiter? Saturn must have a very small core and be truly a big ball of gas, but it must also be very old, because it was able to hold on to its gas and not lose out to Jupiter. An early start is important for planetary growth, because the big will get bigger. Saturn may predate Jupiter, but then failed to grow further once Jupiter overtook it. It got so far and then stopped.

But between Venus and Earth, I wonder if ionisation in the protoplanetary nebula encouraged pairing off in some way, to make one planet acidic and another alkaline.

#48 Re: Terraformation » Floating Venusian cities or Venus vs Mars vs Titan revisited » 2007-06-15 10:10:02

StarDreamer,
I picture the early solar system as more chaos than order.
Lots of things probably formed then were promptly blow apart.
huge things hurdling around the solar system with no practical order, worlds trying to form, worlds being gobbled by the sun, giant ice asteroids being thrown inwards, lots of planet collisions, a chaotic sun with all that activity etc.What a mess LOL.

Yes, up to a point. Nothing major appears to have ever invaded our heliosphere space, however, to disrupt the formation of our system. The orbits have low eccentricity and everything is pretty orderly. Which is why life was able to evolve here. I am sure there is life throughout the galaxy, but, even where there is life, on perhaps one or maybe two planets per system, 33% of it will be bacterial or viral and 80% of it will be unicellular and only 5% will be interesting to us (ie: useful). I am basing these guesses on the same principle of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (Haeckel). Earth spent 8/10ths of its history supporting unicellular life and only got interesting with the precambrian explosion and then life did not venture out of oceans onto the land for many millions of years after that. So we may discover planets with life on them, but only 1 in 20 will have a terrestrial biosphere waiting for us. And then, of course, we won't want that life to be TOO advanced, now will we??  :shock: So, yes, there was chaos, but overall, the solar system we find ourselves in evolved in pristine conditions, by a natural progression. And that can teach us a lot about what we might find elsewhere to be also true.

#49 Re: Terraformation » Harmony-the way to increase effectiveness of ecosystem » 2007-06-15 09:38:39

A further thought: plants on Earth with variegated leaves, like euonymous, self-regulate their light absorption. If you grow one of these in full sun, its leaves get lots of creamy-white patches, which is its way of reducing its light intake (it begins to reflect white light, which means the full spectrum is rejected). If you grow it in full shade, all the creaminess leaves the leaves (arghh) and they get dark, because the plant is trying to maximise absorption of the available energy. So it is actually a shade-loving plant which is nonetheless able to compensate for an overdose of sunshine by scaling back its own photosynthesis.

Plants on Mars should have broad leaves (to maximise exposure), with strong heliotropic powers (angling to the Sun) and dark dark chlorophyll (for maximum infrared absorption). The leaves should be thick and high in sugars to defend against cold and to retain moisture, with very small pores to reduce evaporation. Perhaps the plant will prepare for the night by folding down its leaves against the stem or trunk. No part of the plant should be brittle, because it must withstand dust storms and winds. It must have an aggressive root system to seek out moisture and it must be ready to "make hay while the sun shines". It might have tubers or bulbs deep underground for storing nutrients and reserve fluids. I think I have just described an uber-succulent for arctic conditions! A deciduous cactus perhaps.

#50 Re: Terraformation » Harmony-the way to increase effectiveness of ecosystem » 2007-06-15 09:26:55

It is a curiosity that plants on Earth are green. This means that chlorophyll is scattering (rejecting) the green portion of the Sun's spectral light, and so plants appear green. But the green part of the Sun's spectrum is actually the most energetic part, so why do plants reject it? Is it too much for them? There is a "Purple Earth" theory which says that green plants evolved in competition with purple photosynthesisers which absorbed green and rejected red and blue light.

See: http://www.physorg.com/news95510352.html

Especially read the posted comment below about the chlorophyll molecule and its similarity to the hemoglobin molecule -- Mg versus Fe. Hemoglobin alternates red and blue in the transport of oxygen.

Hmmm. Maybe those early purple plants used something similar to hemoglobin for photosynthesis and then made the jump to animal life by eating their green competitors ....

In any event, Mars, being further out and very red, might do well with infrared absorptive plants, which might thus look violet-black (rejecting UV light).

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB