Mars Needs Nitrogen

Antius · 2015-08-10 14:06:57

The Martian atmosphere has a column density of ~200kg/m3. About 3% of that is nitrogen. Therefore, mars already has sufficient nitrogen for a substantial paraterraforming project. Enough for a civilisation of billions of people.

knightdepaix · 2015-08-14 16:33:21

If nitrogen is indeed needed, a simple solution is to nuclear fuse helium-4 to nitrogen-14.

7 moles of helium-4 ---> 1 mole of dinitrogen gas

Reasons:
1) Nitrogen-14 atom in N2 gas hold more nuclear binding energy per nucleon than helium-4
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde … 355AAcG6sX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-4

for N2-14, 7.47MeV; for He-4, 7.075175MeV

2) Fusing helium-4 to nitrogen-14 will also produce energy, which can be exported from Mars to support the terraformation effort.

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance … ing_energy
Both helium-4 and Nitrogen-14 are among the most abundant isotopes in the solar system, which is the scope of human exploitation of chemical elements in foreseeable practical terms. So no worries about running out of starting material but where to find them.

SpaceNut · 2015-08-15 17:43:36

Thanks for the numbers and other ideas for Mars atmosphere but once I started to repair the pages 1 through 4 for the shifting post issue, I gained an understanding as to what we had forgotten about mars keeping is atmosphere.

First up is gravity, then there is the pesky solar wind and then the lack of the radiation belts plus magnetic field to make it harder for the solar wind to blow our newly created teraformed mars air away.

Void · 2015-08-17 10:09:28

I don't think it is yet understood which planet or moon might be the best fulcrum & lever for the intentions hoped intentions of the future human race.

The hope is that they will even seek. There is still hope.

Some recent advancements in material procurements by some societies on Earth offer hope that the human race will not choose to abort it's brains and minds and choose to live in squalor.

Recent meaning 200 to 500 years.

Mars still is the front contender as far as I am concerned, but the Moon, Venus, and Ceres suggest alternatives.

200-500 years is a long time, if you are not falling into dark ages, but progressing.

Mars does not have to be perfect. It can last for some time as mercy from the harshest plays of the universe. So, I would not worry so much about atmospheric loss, or Nitrogen.

The planet comes rather close to being able to support life, and I suggest that technology and adaptation, will ultimately suffice to provide shelter for an important branch of the human race, one that invents it's future, and does not let book bangers practice a universal cultural lobotomy on the whole human race.

Clearly domes and ice covered reservoirs can have elevated nitrogen levels. With the coming robotics, either humans will have great material wealth, even on Mars, or will go extinct, or will become cyborgs.

So, atmospheric loss and Nitrogen levels are of less interest.

Antius · 2015-08-18 07:59:05

Void wrote:

I don't think it is yet understood which planet or moon might be the best fulcrum & lever for the intentions hoped intentions of the future human race.
The hope is that they will even seek. There is still hope.
Some recent advancements in material procurements by some societies on Earth offer hope that the human race will not choose to abort it's brains and minds and choose to live in squalor.
Recent meaning 200 to 500 years.
Mars still is the front contender as far as I am concerned, but the Moon, Venus, and Ceres suggest alternatives.
200-500 years is a long time, if you are not falling into dark ages, but progressing.
Mars does not have to be perfect. It can last for some time as mercy from the harshest plays of the universe. So, I would not worry so much about atmospheric loss, or Nitrogen.
The planet comes rather close to being able to support life, and I suggest that technology and adaptation, will ultimately suffice to provide shelter for an important branch of the human race, one that invents it's future, and does not let book bangers practice a universal cultural lobotomy on the whole human race.
Clearly domes and ice covered reservoirs can have elevated nitrogen levels. With the coming robotics, either humans will have great material wealth, even on Mars, or will go extinct, or will become cyborgs.
So, atmospheric loss and Nitrogen levels are of less interest.

I couldn’t agree more. When discussing space colonisation we all tend to fall victim to what Gerard O’Neill called planetary chauvinism. There is a tendency to base our expectations upon what we are accustomed to: i.e. humans living under open skies, breathing air at 1 bar, in detached houses in sprawled towns, surrounded by forests, fields, lakes, oceans and all the other stuff that we as human beings have grown up around. It is hard to imagine a life that is not deprived under anything other than Earth analogue conditions. In terraforming debates it is easy to casually talk about mega engineering scenarios intended to build Earth analogue conditions, without any consideration of their cost and affordability in the real world.

The reality is that for a long time to come on Mars and for the indefinite future on most other bodies; human colonists must adapt to the environment as it is. That means dry, cold, vacuums, filled with hard radiation.

All settlements will be extremely confined by most Earth people’s standards. They will need to be pressurised, shielded and will be necessarily compact in order to conserve heat. Living space will be expensive and there will be a very strong incentive to make the most economic use of every cubic meter of habitat volume. Energy will be expensive. Virtually all processed materials and products will be expensive. There will be a strong incentive to minimise the consumption of all material goods, get the most utility out of everything and recycle all wastes. Expect to live in a small apartment, essentially just a bedroom, with shared kitchen, shared showers, shared toilets, etc. Expect vertical living, with neighbours above, below and on every side. Expect to share practically everything. Most of your free time will be spent making and repairing things that you and your community will be using. Expect to see small urban parks, not endless prairies and unspoiled countryside. For the most part, any habitable volume with natural light will be filled with plants used for food production.

In short, if you are planning on colonising Mars or anywhere else off-Earth, expect to spend most of your time in what will essentially be a single, multi-use building. Life will be intensely communal, with everything you do being gossiped about and discussed and analysed. Social hierarchies and petty jealousies will at times make day-to-day life unbearable.

On Mars, it may be possible to ultimately increase the atmospheric pressure by releasing fluorocarbons. But this in itself will be a massive industrial effort and will not take place until after the planet has been substantially colonised. Once pressure reaches 1/3rd of earth sea-level, cities can be built in large greenhouse glass and steel structures. This will reduce the cost of living space substantially, but we are still talking relatively compact cities and apartment living. Most other worlds (the moon, Ceres, etc.) terraforming is not realistically possible and living arrangements must remain extremely compact and communal for the indefinite future.

Void · 2015-08-18 16:10:57

I rather agree. However, I would not rule out industrial type bulk agriculture.

If you could grow some type of weed in a harsh environment, not out on the unmodified surface, but a low pressure greenhouse, then you would have hopes of edible and other useful organics.

I think as food becomes scarce on Earth, (Overfished Oceans, degraded farm lands, degraded water supplies, and swelling population), it will be natural for research in this area to be preformed on Earth for Earth populations, and so a Martian colony will get free research on how to transform a weed into food and fuel.

I say weed, because most extreme organisms are likely to be inedible in their natural form, but they may survive harsh conditions, requiring less effort to grow them.

Last edited by Void (2015-08-18 16:11:59)

Void · 2015-08-18 23:29:33

If much photo agriculture could occur in low pressure greenhouses on Mars, then perhaps more effort could be devoted to habitat for humans. Such habitat might include some windows, and perhaps artificial lighting for special plants.

I am wondering about these familiar items:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_330

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar

Where I am going with this, is can you make habitat walls such as for the expandable modules, but not bother with the expansion thing?

Could the materials such as Kevlar be largely manufactured on Mars largely from atmospheric gasses and water, and perhaps printed into sheets with the evil 3D printer tech?

Also it seems like if you were to carve sandstone caves, this tech could make a very good airtight lining for such caves. Wouldn't have to be 18 inches thick in that case either. However on second thought, perhaps expansion would be a good option, where you would carve a cave, and then insert the unexpanded section, and then expand it to fill the whole cave. Again 18 inches not needed for such a method, I would think.

Last edited by Void (2015-08-18 23:32:09)

Antius · 2015-08-19 05:15:43

Maybe some sort of polytunnel would be the best choice for agriculture. Polypropylene is easy to manufacture in sheets, is transluscent and resistant to creep and fatigue. If pressure within the tunnel is kept to 150mb, then gardeners could be provided with compressed O2 cylinders for breathing. UV protection could be provided by a sacrificial outer layer which can be doped to absorb UV at the neccesary wavelengths.

I think the idea of masonry for construction of human habitable areas is a good one. Carving caves is an option. Bricks, Adobe and compressed soil blocks are others. The later may be especially suitable for Mars, as it is not neccesary to wet the material before moulding it. You just put the correct grade of slightly damp soil into the mould and compress it to 3000 psi. The result is a brick with a compressive strength of 2-10MPa (similar to non-engineering baked bricks) with about half the volume of the original soil. On Earth, the blocks are susceptable to damp like all unbaked earth components. But that would'nt be a problem on Mars.

Void · 2015-08-19 17:10:16

All good thoughts.

Just now I am working in a particular direction, perhaps you can help.

I do accept that a constructed building could substitute for a cave. Particularly if the inflatable habitat is capable of holding its own air pressure with or with out the rock/masonary overcoat.

Sandstone caves most likely restricts you to certain locations on the equator, such as Mt. Sharp.

So, in the case of sandstone, I am thinking of a cave carved into the mountain (Many of them in time).

Before the inflatable insert is deployed to fill the cave, of course there would be an open portal, that the excavation was started from and that the removed material exited through. In addition, at the back of the cave would be a narrow tunnel, that could connect many of these constructions with each other (The tunnels, not having portals to the outside).

The inflatable insert would be deployed. It would have two paths for humans to enter and exit. Perhaps an air lock on each one, or perhaps just a door for the interior connection to the tunnels.

While each insert is intended to be highly safe from depressurization, the tunnels will be less safe. Perhaps even just sealed with a sealant, and perhaps web material.

So after each of these was created, then attach an inflatable greenhouse to the outside airlock.

You said:

Maybe some sort of polytunnel would be the best choice for agriculture. Polypropylene is easy to manufacture in sheets, is transluscent and resistant to creep and fatigue. If pressure within the tunnel is kept to 150mb, then gardeners could be provided with compressed O2 cylinders for breathing. UV protection could be provided by a sacrificial outer layer which can be doped to absorb UV at the neccesary wavelengths.

The greenhouse will only be partially pressurized. Both the inflated hab and the greenhouse will be filled with a N2 & O2 mix.

The greenhouse itself will need an airlock exit to the outside.

It should be possible to pump "Air" from the Greenhouse into the inflatable hab. Of course this would allow the movement of Oxygen from greenhouse plants to the humans who need it. CO2 from the hab could be vented to the greenhouse or outside, and also excess "Air" could be vented to the greenhouse. During times of plant growth, outside air could be injected into the greenhouse at slow rates, and this could help in the collection of Nitrogen, if in fact scrubbed CO2 concentrate could be vented from the inflatable hab to the outside.

It is my intention that both the inflatable hab and greenhouse will operate at variable air pressures.

So, if humans were planning to do an EVA outside on the surface of Mars, first, the greenhouse would be pumped down to a minimum value that the plants could be tolerated. The "Air" would be pumped from the greenhouse into the hab (slowly).

This would allow a minimum differential pressure between the greenhouse and the outside, making the use of that airlock less resource consuming. After the work outside was done, tools and machinery could be deposited in an appropriate area of the greenhouse, and the suited persons would be in the greenhouse also, and then air would be vented carefully from the inflatable hab into the greenhouse. Enough to allow for liquid wash water. So wet washing of toxins off from suits an equipment would be possible. The persons would return into the inflatable hab, and the greenhouse would be pressurized slowly to the optimal pressure for plant growth.

I do understand that their are good plans to reduce contamination of toxins in the human habitat, but I think this goes steps further.

Last edited by Void (2015-08-19 17:12:31)

knightdepaix · 2016-04-11 15:02:32

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qsolwindcomp.html
The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
The total number of particles carried away from the Sun by the solar wind is about 1.3×1036 per second.[20] Thus, the total mass loss each year is about (2–3)×10−14 solar masses,[21] or about one billion kilograms per second.

If a comet body or asteroid can be parked in the path of solar wind onto Mars, could the masses in solar wind be collected ? As hydrogen is abundant in solar wind, methane, water, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, silane, magnesium and iron hydride can be made for storage. These hydrogen compounds with helium and neon under storage can be transported onto nuclear fusion factories on Mars or one of Martian moons for turning them into chemicals. Methane and silane can be used as fuels. Water for human use. Neon and hydrogen sulfide for industries. nitrogen for terraforming. magnesium and iron hydride can be refined and converted back to their elements.

Helium-4 itself is used for nuclear fusion energy generation, turning into nitrogen -- again -- and fluorine, which then react with Martian atmospheric carbon dioxide or the hydrogen sulfide just mentioned into carbon tetrafluoride and sulfur hexafluoride -- both very potent greenhouse gases. The waste oxygen and hydrogen are yet again for human use or turning them into water for storage.

So a nuclear fusion based nuclear and chemical industries are quite important if not essential for a Martian settlement with substantial population size.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-12 06:38:57

Helium-4 fusion occurs in stars that are nearing the end of their lives, this is often referred to as the helium flash. I'll bet Helium-4 fusion is harder than proton fusion.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-12 16:47:10

Well to create a fusion reaction for creating nitrogen? CNO cycle

Just one of the methods from the link...

The main reactions of the CNO-I cycle are 12
6C→13 7N→13 6C→14 7N→15 8O→15 7N→12 6C
12/6C + 1/1H → 13/7N + γ + 1.95 MeV
13/7N → 13/6C + e+ + νe + 1.20 MeV (half-life of 9.965 minutes)
13/6C + 1/1H → 14/7N + γ + 7.54 MeV
14/7N + 1/1H → 15/8O + γ + 7.35 MeV
15/8O → 15/7N + e+ + νe + 1.73 MeV (half-life of 122.24 seconds)
15/7N + 1/1H → 12/6C + 4/2He + 4.96 MeV
where the Carbon-12 nucleus used in the first reaction is regenerated in the last reaction.

One of the items to look at is the output power from doing the fusion as well when looking for a specific outcome....

That would make the longer life isotopic element fusion better at creating not only power but the end resulting element of choice as well.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 12:01:13

SpaceNut wrote:

Well to create a fusion reaction for creating nitrogen? CNO cycle
Just one of the methods from the link...
The main reactions of the CNO-I cycle are 12
6C→13 7N→13 6C→14 7N→15 8O→15 7N→12 6C
12/6C + 1/1H → 13/7N + γ + 1.95 MeV
13/7N → 13/6C + e+ + νe + 1.20 MeV (half-life of 9.965 minutes)
13/6C + 1/1H → 14/7N + γ + 7.54 MeV
14/7N + 1/1H → 15/8O + γ + 7.35 MeV
15/8O → 15/7N + e+ + νe + 1.73 MeV (half-life of 122.24 seconds)
15/7N + 1/1H → 12/6C + 4/2He + 4.96 MeV
where the Carbon-12 nucleus used in the first reaction is regenerated in the last reaction.
One of the items to look at is the output power from doing the fusion as well when looking for a specific outcome....
That would make the longer life isotopic element fusion better at creating not only power but the end resulting element of choice as well.

This would be a useful thing to know if you wanted to colonize Saturn, it has as you know a mostly hydrogen atmosphere, and nuclear fusion makes a great power source, the energy output would go towards heating the hydrogen within a balloon, for without heat, a hydrogen balloon does not float in Saturn's atmosphere. If the hydrogen leaks through the balloon's membrane, you just pump in some more from Saturn's atmosphere and heat it just like a hot air balloon. As for getting into and out of Saturn's atmosphere, a space elevator would do this trick. Probably the first ones would need to hang onto a stream or ring particles that are moving at faster than orbital velocity, in order to support the tether. This would be located under the innermost ring of Saturn.

As you can see by this diagram, there are four space elevators, they don't extend out to synchronius orbit, rather they end before reaching the innermost ring of the giant planet, the ring particles are then used as part of a stream. At the tops of each elevator cable is a particle deflector which deflects the stream of particles towards the top of the next space elevator, which in this case is 90 degrees around the planet, and that space elevator deflects the stream towards the next elevator and so on. By this device, people can move up and down this elevator, into and out of Saturn's Atmosphere. Once out of Saturn's atmosphere, a traveler may be accelerated sideways along a cable to as to reach orbital velocity, and then it can climb the rings further out away from the planet, saving on rocket propellent.

knightdepaix · 2016-05-22 09:17:56

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Helium-4 fusion occurs in stars that are nearing the end of their lives, this is often referred to as the helium flash. I'll bet Helium-4 fusion is harder than proton fusion.

Well, does helium-4 hold less energy than nitrogen on the average binding energy curve ? That graph suggests that fusing helium-4 to nitrogen is going to yield energy. This manufacturing of nitrogen is going to be easier than extracting nitrogen from nitrate deposit on Mars or transporting nitrogen from asteroid or Pluto.

Antius · 2016-05-22 16:56:51

To produce appreciable quantities of higher elements using nuclear fusion is no mean feat. Bear in mind that to yield 1GW-year of electricity in a fusion reactor, something like 100kg of hydrogen isotopes must be fused in a machine weighing several thousand tonnes. Transmutation has never been a practical source of materials here on Earth, and it is orders of magnitude easier to achieve with fission than fusion. It would be easier to source nitrogen elsewhere (Jupiter?) and transport it to Mars, not that this is likely to be affordable either in the foreseeable future.

Mars has plenty of nitrogen. We just need to be realistic with our ambitions. With a column density of 200kg/m2 and 3% nitrogen in the atmosphere, Mars has 6kg of N2 for every square metre of surface. That's enough buffer gas to paraterraform the entire planet if needs be.

I think there are strong arguments against terraforming Mars. Our desire to do so is motivated by our psychological need for a familiar Earth-like environment. But the nature of the planet and its resource set are not suitable to that goal. In addition, the environment of Mars is quite useful to humanity in much the same state as it is in. Its thin atmosphere provides a source of materials and protection from meteors and solar flares, yet presents negligible wind loading to any structure. Cosmic rays can be shielded using local magnetic fields. The huge day-night temperature extremes are a valuable source of power. The chilly CO2 ice caps provide a superb heat sink for nuclear reactors. The absence of oceans makes global rail and electricity grids more easily achievable than on Earth. The thin atmosphere allows mass-drivers to operate at surface level, firing materials into orbit. Rocket engines are more efficient when external pressure is low and the atmosphere is so thin that transport between any two points on the planet can be efficiently achieved using ballistic vehicles.

In short, we need to exploit the place for what it is and in many ways, its differences from Earth are its biggest advantages.

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-22 17:25:42)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-22 19:05:00

Antius wrote:

To produce appreciable quantities of higher elements using nuclear fusion is no mean feat. Bear in mind that to yield 1GW-year of electricity in a fusion reactor, something like 100kg of hydrogen isotopes must be fused in a machine weighing several thousand tonnes. Transmutation has never been a practical source of materials here on Earth, and it is orders of magnitude easier to achieve with fission than fusion. It would be easier to source nitrogen elsewhere (Jupiter?) and transport it to Mars, not that this is likely to be affordable either in the foreseeable future.
Mars has plenty of nitrogen. We just need to be realistic with our ambitions. With a column density of 200kg/m2 and 3% nitrogen in the atmosphere, Mars has 6kg of N2 for every square metre of surface. That's enough buffer gas to paraterraform the entire planet if needs be.
I think there are strong arguments against terraforming Mars. Our desire to do so is motivated by our psychological need for a familiar Earth-like environment. But the nature of the planet and its resource set are not suitable to that goal. In addition, the environment of Mars is quite useful to humanity in much the same state as it is in. Its thin atmosphere provides a source of materials and protection from meteors and solar flares, yet presents negligible wind loading to any structure. Cosmic rays can be shielded using local magnetic fields. The huge day-night temperature extremes are a valuable source of power. The chilly CO2 ice caps provide a superb heat sink for nuclear reactors. The absence of oceans makes global rail and electricity grids more easily achievable than on Earth. The thin atmosphere allows mass-drivers to operate at surface level, firing materials into orbit. Rocket engines are more efficient when external pressure is low and the atmosphere is so thin that transport between any two points on the planet can be efficiently achieved using ballistic vehicles.
In short, we need to exploit the place for what it is and in many ways, its differences from Earth are its biggest advantages.

Well then, the Moon is even more useful if that's your criteria, it has a vacuum for an atmosphere, this would be good for nuclear fusion, as you just need the magnets, you don't need the wall to keep the air out so it doesn't ruin your plasma. Think of the Moon more as a giant space station made out of rock, rather than a world, the most desired spots would be the north and south poles, as those places have all month long 24 hour access to sunlight just like free space, plus you have the added benefit of one sixth G under your feet, so you don't have to eat zero gravity food and used zero gravity toilets, you don't have to worry about the rotation rates to produce your gravity either.

Antius · 2016-05-23 04:58:38

The moon is a likely destination for human colonisation. However, I agree with your assessment that it is more of an outpost than a seat of civilisation. As you will know well, it lacks the raw materials needed for thriving civilisation. Aside from small amounts found at the poles and trace solar wind gases in the regolith, it lacks volatile elements and is depleted in anything other than trash rocks. For this reason, the US has chosen to prioritise asteroid missions over lunar missions, a choice not entirely lacking in sensibility.

On Mars, for our purposes, there is plenty of water, carbon, nitrogen, rare metals, etc. Everything that is found on Earth and in many cases, in a more convenient form. You can't make plastics out of thin air on Earth. Mars has enough resources for a civilisation of billions. It has enough atmosphere to be useful as an atmosphere, yet enough vacuum to be useful in all the ways that that is useful. So I would propose that terraforming would be a destructive act in many ways and future inhabitants may become concerned about global warming and the atmospheric thickening that it brings.

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-23 05:01:48)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-23 10:30:02

Actually Titan would make a better heat sink, and it has all the volatile elements needed for life, it just lacks heat. Venus has all the volatiles except for hydrogen, which can be found in the clouds. Venus has the "bones" of an Earthlike world, it just needs us to put some "flesh" on it! Venus, unlike Mars, has an active crust, its volcanos aren't billions of years old, the only problems with Venus are its atmosphere, its rotation rate, and its distance from the Sun which means the mount of light it receives. If we can fix these three factors, we can have another "Earth".

SpaceNut · 2016-05-25 19:36:01

I think that the topic has drifted for long enough as we still are not focusing on what resources Mars has to offer when comparing them to what is really need and why its needed.
I am sure we will bring some nitrogen on the first few missions to mars to make use of in order to great the environment that life here on earth is use to. Then as we learn to process the soil and atmosphere we will learn about the loss rate for trying to keep that environment.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-26 06:45:33

The question is whether there is more nitrogen in Martian soil than in Earth soil, and what happens when we extract that nitrogen from the soil, and thereby deplete it for plant life. Lets assume we had the ability to move one billion people from Earth to Mars, and what sort of space transportation system that would imply, and what else we could move besides people with that. Probably the nearest source of nitrogen we could exploit would be in the asteroids, so the question is how many asteroids would we have to process to create an Earthlike atmosphere around Mars I'm assuming we'd need about as much as in Earth's atmosphere. Mars has one third the surface area of Earth, but it also has one third the gravity, meaning we'd need three times as much atmosphere to create one bar air pressure on the surface, but with one third the surface area for it to rest one, we have 3/3 or One earth atmospheric mass of the gases that Earth has in its atmosphere, the only gas that Mars has enough of is carbon dioxide, we don't need any more of that. Nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor are also green house gases.

A Martian atmosphere will have all these layers, except the Troposphere will be 30 miles thick, the Stratosphere will be 60 miles thick, the Mesosphere would go another 60 miles, the Thermosphere will go 1,050 miles out. Fortunately Phobos still orbits further out than this, a wider atmosphere may cause increased orbital decay of that satellite however.

knightdepaix · 2016-05-31 22:54:58

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Well then, the Moon is even more useful if that's your criteria, it has a vacuum for an atmosphere, this would be good for nuclear fusion,

Antius wrote:

The moon is a likely destination for human colonisation. However, I agree with your assessment that it is more of an outpost than a seat of civilisation.

The moon is a good candidate site for space-based industry and storage. Because of its remoteness to access to much chemical elements, lunar locations are sites for factory to process imported material and chemical making use of one sixth G and stronger solar energy than on Mars. Given good enough industrial standards, the manufactured products can be stored until shipment. Also if Venus is terraformed or its chemical elements are processed and shipped out, the moon is going to be a site of distribution to Earth or Earth orbits, Mars or beyond.

Not least, any industrial accident would not pollute the lunar territorial environment enough for serious remediation also because of remoteness.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-06-01 06:28:52

knightdepaix wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Well then, the Moon is even more useful if that's your criteria, it has a vacuum for an atmosphere, this would be good for nuclear fusion,
Antius wrote:
The moon is a likely destination for human colonisation. However, I agree with your assessment that it is more of an outpost than a seat of civilisation.
The moon is a good candidate site for space-based industry and storage. Because of its remoteness to access to much chemical elements, lunar locations are sites for factory to process imported material and chemical making use of one sixth G and stronger solar energy than on Mars. Given good enough industrial standards, the manufactured products can be stored until shipment. Also if Venus is terraformed or its chemical elements are processed and shipped out, the moon is going to be a site of distribution to Earth or Earth orbits, Mars or beyond.
Not least, any industrial accident would not pollute the lunar territorial environment enough for serious remediation also because of remoteness.

Pollution is not a well defined term for places like the Moon and Venus, it presupposes there is some desired state that you want to preserve. Venus would be considered a very polluted planet if it was expected to have an ecosystem like Earth's Would you consider Venus' acid rain clouds to be "pollution?" Is the sulfur-dioxide in its atmosphere "pollution?"

SpaceNut · 2016-06-03 06:24:46

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants. Pollution is often classed as point source or nonpoint source pollution.

We think of pollutents as being the waste products that man has created, not from natural conciquences and while the acid atmosphere is a man made creation here on earth as a result of coal or other burning of products that is not the case for venus....

Antius · 2016-07-21 11:10:57

I wonder if the absence of nitrogen in the Martian atmosphere is partially attributed to photo-chemical effects?

On Earth, nitrates are rapidly metabolised by living things, which return nitrogen to the atmosphere when they die and rot. That doesn't happen (as far as we know) on Mars. Nitrous oxides are produced by photochemical dissociation in the Martian atmosphere. They are present in concentration of 100ppm, which is a non-trivial quantity. This gas must ultimately attack metal oxides on the surface of the planet forming nitrates. With no surface life, there are no natural mechanisms for returning nitrogen to the air, so most of it remains trapped into nitrates. Gradually, nitrates dissolve into brines, which then carries the nitrogen deeper into the crust.

SpaceNut · 2016-07-21 19:49:19

List of gaseous elements

=d8f2cef2d4e5dec6f60959df9e51bd87.jpg?revision=1

Table 10.1.2 Some Common Substances That Are Gases at 25°C and 1.0 atm
Elements Compounds
He (helium) HF (hydrogen fluoride) C2H4 (ethylene)
Ne (neon) HCl (hydrogen chloride) C2H2 (acetylene)
Ar (argon) HBr (hydrogen bromide) C3H8 (propane)
Kr (krypton) HI (hydrogen iodide) C4H10 (butane)
Xe (xenon) HCN (hydrogen cyanide)* CO (carbon monoxide)
Rn (radon) H2S (hydrogen sulfide) CO2 (carbon dioxide)
H2 (hydrogen) NH3 (ammonia) NO (nitric oxide)
N2 (nitrogen) PH3 (phosphine) N2O (nitrous oxide)
O2 (oxygen) CH4 (methane) NO2 (nitrogen dioxide)
O3 (ozone) C2H6 (ethane) SO2 (sulfur dioxide)
F2 (fluorine)
Cl2 (chlorine)

http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2015-08-10 14:06:57

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#127 2015-08-14 16:33:21

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#128 2015-08-15 17:43:36

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#129 2015-08-17 10:09:28

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#130 2015-08-18 07:59:05

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#131 2015-08-18 16:10:57

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#132 2015-08-18 23:29:33

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#133 2015-08-19 05:15:43

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#134 2015-08-19 17:10:16

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#135 2016-04-11 15:02:32

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#136 2016-04-12 06:38:57

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#137 2016-04-12 16:47:10

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#138 2016-04-15 12:01:13

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#139 2016-05-22 09:17:56

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#140 2016-05-22 16:56:51

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#141 2016-05-22 19:05:00

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#142 2016-05-23 04:58:38

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#143 2016-05-23 10:30:02

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#144 2016-05-25 19:36:01

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#145 2016-05-26 06:45:33

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#146 2016-05-31 22:54:58

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#147 2016-06-01 06:28:52

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#148 2016-06-03 06:24:46

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#149 2016-07-21 11:10:57

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

#150 2016-07-21 19:49:19

Re: Mars Needs Nitrogen

Board footer