You are not logged in.
Thanks to A.Titarev I get aquainted with the work on this theme of Gerald Nordley ( in the thread for Mercury terraforming), and the things about I spoke several times in this forum come together in a single multilevel scheme in my mind.
Concerning the topic about the terraformability of any body, the discovered by Nordley empirical rule about the surface gravity of the planets, appears to be quite usefull. (It resembles to me much to other empirical rule - Titius-Bode`s one about the distance to the sun of the planets...). The planets tend to divide in certain groups according to this rule. Every group consists of bodies with ~2.5 times lesser surface gravity (SG) than the representatives of the more massive ones. This taxonomy fits very well to the planetary bodies population in the solar system - every round astronomical body fits to one of the SG-levels!!!
Starting from Jupiter as Zero level down we find two planets on First level - Earth and Venus with SG ~2.5 times lower -- i.e. about 1 G (excluding the outer system gas giants - Uranus and Naptune and Saturn).
Dividing SG again on 2.5 we have another two on Secong level - Mars and Mercury.
Again - we have six bodies: Luna, Io, Europa, Ganimede, Callisto, Titan with SG of about 1/6th of earth`s on Third level.
The next group - the Forth level of about 7% earth SG consists (yet) of Triton and Pluto.
Fifth level (between 2-3% of earth`s SG); here we find: Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Charon, 2004DW, Sedna(?)...
The Sixth level where occur to be: Mimas, Enceladus, Tethis, Miranda, Ixion, Varuna, Quaoar... (and counting) represents the lower limit for size of planemo - "planetary mass object" - according to the planetary criterium proposed by Gibor Basri -- an object that obtains round shape under it`s self-gravity pull.
Objects with smaller than 400-700 km. diameter and respectingly "seventh level" of SG dividing to 2.5, have irregular shape and have status of planetoides - asteroids, comets, meteoroides (Splendid example is the Saturn`s Hyperion - ~400 km. wide, but irregular - lacks little mass to round itself).
The objects form the zero level and "minus levels" are gas giants without solid surface -- and have indeed all diameter close to the Jupiter`s one -- up to 8-13 jovian masses where the planet becomes fully convectional and core-less, and after 13 to 75 jovian masses burns its deuterium and lithium - thus being brown dwarf, bigger mass leads us to the stars` realm.
Even on the Earth`s First level there are bodies with no solid or liquid surface - Neptune, Saturn, Uranus, so indeed this is the upper SG limit for classical terraforming. Higher SG means no surface to terraform.
After this longish intro, if we take Gibor Basri`s planetary taxonomy, exclude from it the gas giants, combine it with the Nordley`s SG Rule -- we see that all the terrestrial planets occur to be perfectly scaled in terms of SG in the shown above SIX LEVELS!!!
I have to say that non-classical terraforming methods are plausible and applicable both for the bodies with bigger than earth`s SG ( biulding of artificial surfaces on higher altitude where we have 1 G -- see, Paul Birch`s 'supramundanes') and for the bodies with lower SG than the sixth level -- iregular rocks ( roofing, tenting, doming, cavitating, bableforming, or just simply using them as building materials for tube worlds and supraplanetary shells...).
But for the six levels of existing SG`s bodies we have to figger out ways of actual planetary-surface open-sky terraforming.
We see that the earth lies in level where part of the representatives are gas giants and the only non giant except the earth - Venus, has enormous atmosphere, so this may be typical and to occur that the terraforming of ~ earth`s SG bodies is very difficult, i.e. expencive.
The other argument is that smaller ones from Second and Third level - Marses and Lunas have to be quite numerous in the Galaxy - having totaly ten reprsentatives of the IInd, IIIth, IVth Levels in Solar system there have to be TRILLIONS of such objects in the Milky way. We must learn how to terraform them!!!
What do you think about the possibility of teraforming the least bodies from the IVth (SG ~ 7% gee), Vth (SG ~ 2,5% gee) and VIth (SG ~ 1% gee) level?
Go back to "Terraforming Sedna?" thread in order to se my notes on possible terraformability of extremely distant and underilluminated Fifth level object.
Offline
The smaller bodies have all kinds of composition.
A comfortable environment biosystem needs very specific conditions.
So the smaller bodies can only be used as material
to construct a small Garden of Eden environment.
Offline
So the smaller bodies can only be used as material
to construct a small Garden of Eden environment.
I agree that the smallest bodies and particles in the System have 'legitimate' application as mines and pieces or ore.
But, my question is how small has to be a body in order to be considered as mere mine or stone, and how big to be recognised as a distinct WORLD ( despite of the different compositions - they are not at all problem if the surface gravity is regarded as enough for establishing biosphere).
-
I think that the division line between the stones and the worlds have to be lied down at the Roundness boundary -- the point where the mass of the body suffices to make it nearly spherical, i.e. planetary mass object.
-
The smallest round bodies have surface gravity of about 1% the earth`s. Have to be considered the lowest limit of tolerability of surface gravity for humans without major body modifications... It off course may occur that the bodies from Sixth and Fifth group are not compatible -- but even then I believe that their dismantle will not be permited. Simply because there is plenty of material out of them scattered or concentrated within the Solar system. See:
============================================
........."Composition Of The Solar System
The Sun contains 99.85% of all the matter in the Solar System. The planets, which condensed out of the same disk of material that formed the Sun, contain only 0.135% of the mass of the solar system. Jupiter contains more than twice the matter of all the other planets combined. Satellites of the planets, comets, asteroids, meteoroids, and the interplanetary medium constitute the remaining 0.015%. The following table is a list of the mass distribution within our Solar System.
Sun: 99.85%
Planets: 0.135%
Comets: 0.01% ?
Satellites: 0.00005%
Minor Planets: 0.0000002% ?
Meteoroids: 0.0000001% ?
Interplanetary Medium: 0.0000001% ? "....................
=============================================
Puting aside the planets:
1.comets -- this 0.01% means 30-40 earth masses in unchanged primordial matter, containing the whole Periodic table in almost zero-g environment perfect for mining. Notice that the major part of the mass of Kuipert belt and the Oort cloud lies comperativelly close to us. KB contains about 100 000 bodies with diameter bigger than 100 km. The estimations for the OC vary from one earth`s to one jupiter`s mass. Only from here -- the Outer system, we could easily get ALL the building material that we`d ever need. BTW, another super-advantage is that these comets represent GIANT reservoir of gravitational energy. Descending them in the inner system will provide us with so much energy, that only for comparison -- 4 x 10exp30 J is the potential gravitational energy of the earth`s Moon -- if we deorbit it on small pieces in controled manner could have dozens of trillions of jouls per annum for billions of years. KB+OO are many-many orders of magnitude
bigger storage of both energy AND materials than everything else in the System, except the Sun.
2. The Sun itself contains 99.85-99.86% the total system mass, i.e. 333400 earth masses. Having in mind the photosphere composition, except the H+He, about 1.6% of the Sun are O, C, Fe, Ne, N, Si, Mg... i.e. more than 5300 earth masses in building materials, more than 15 Jupiters. Again extremely rich and plenty sourse for materials, AGAIN coupled tighly with more than all the energy necessary to extract and process it, as in the comets case.
3. The meteoroids and interplanetary medium in this figure of 0.0000002% of the mass of the system, equaling the minor planets` mass (almost entirelly represented by several dozens bigger asteroids - 3 level Five planetary bodies - Ceres, Pallas, Vesta!!!) is 10exp21 kg. in "fine building sand" and gas.
Calculate over the minimum requirement for 40 000 kg. per square meter for tube world construction and you realise that from the interplanetary dust and gas only -- about 50 times the earth surface area could be built in space!
4. Particular case is Venus which has carbon in it`s atmosphere to be built several dozens of thousands times the earth surface area...
5. The very small irregular minor planets and moons represent huge source of material+gravitational energy as well, without to have to touch the round ones...
SO, I very firmly think that in that situation it will be unwise and unaesthetic for even inmatured culture to dismantle any good round planetary PLACE if can avoid it. The building materials are important thing but the building ground sometimes has to be the old fashioned PULLING SURFACE, than the more often used naked vacuum for situating rotating tubes.
Offline
I personally favor tarraforming Mars, Venus, the Earth moon, the four Moons of Jupiter, Saturn Moon Titian, Trenton on Neptune and I may or may not consider any of those asteroid. I would consider hollowing out those asteroid that are hundred miles or so, because you could put hundred million people inside and rotate the asteroid for gravity and have a pretty good habitat. But at some point it became not practical to tarraform some thing when it get too small unless you can create gravity platting like on Star Trek and increase the gravity at ground level and/or put an engine on it and make it like a super cruise liner for tens of thousand of people to travel through the solar system. Then that would change the variable and you might consider some thing smaller, but other wise no.
Larry,
Offline
I personally favor tarraforming Mars, Venus, the Earth moon, the four Moons of Jupiter, Saturn Moon Titian, Trenton on Neptune and I may or may not consider any of those asteroid. I would consider hollowing out those asteroid that are hundred miles or so, because you could put hundred million people inside and rotate the asteroid for gravity and have a pretty good habitat. But at some point it became not practical to tarraform some thing when it get too small unless you can create gravity platting like on Star Trek and increase the gravity at ground level and/or put an engine on it and make it like a super cruise liner for tens of thousand of people to travel through the solar system. Then that would change the variable and you might consider some thing smaller, but other wise no.
Larry,
In the Lunar thread, you said, it was impossible to terraform the Moon.
Please check the Mercury thread with my link to the document about terraforming smaller bodies. I believe we can terraform the Moon and even much smaller bodies.
I also favour terraformation of Mars, Venus, the Moon, Callisto, Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Titania, Oberon (the 2 largest around Uranus) and Triton (the largest around Neptune), as well as Mercury - the only solid planet other than Earth that already has a significant magnetic field.
Anatoli Titarev
Offline
G.Nordley formulating his rule ( "divide-on-~2.5" ) noticed very interesting periodicity in the number of bodies present in each group. They appear to distribite in number: many, two, many, two... There isn`t explanation why that occures, but as the same way in Second level ( surface gravity ~0.4 earth`s) we find Mars and Mercury, after the numerouisly populated Third (about one sixth earth`s SG) the Forth level consists of only Pluto and Triton -- with surface gravity 2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 times, i.e. ~16 times lesser than earth`s.
Pluto has 17 mln. sq. km. surface area ( ~Russia!, the biggest country or ~South America), 0.066 g SG, 1,2 km/s escape velocity.
Triton - 23 mln. sq. km. surface area ( ~North America), ~0.07 g SG, one and something km/s escape velocity.
Under ~sixteenth of earth gravity the air column has to be about 150 km high for 1 Bar presure. This is acceptable for open-sky terraforming. The solar wind is weak in their distance to ablate the air-covers. The major work will be to cool the exobase to temperature such so the termal velocity of the particles to mach the requirement for 20% or lower in order the produced atmosphere to be retained indeffinitelly long as on Earth.
For the Fifth level (3% g SG) and the Sixth(1% g SG) kinda tenting is unavoidable - cause the necesary for habiitable air presure level hight of the air column compares to the planetary radius and needs may be real cryomeasures in the exobase in orrder the atmosphere to be retained forr geologicaly long periods.
Offline
terraforming is waay too far off for our purposes in OuterSpace in our foreseeable future. L1 would be the closest we could to achieving this as the general consensus is that L5 is longer the best for it. for one thing it`s convnient to many places. we`re not gonna get that many ppl into Outerspace to really hafta worry bout a terraforming project anyway @ rate we`re going.
Offline
I personally favor tarraforming Mars, Venus, the Earth moon, the four Moons of Jupiter, Saturn Moon Titian, Trenton on Neptune and I may or may not consider any of those asteroid. I would consider hollowing out those asteroid that are hundred miles or so, because you could put hundred million people inside and rotate the asteroid for gravity and have a pretty good habitat. But at some point it became not practical to tarraform some thing when it get too small unless you can create gravity platting like on Star Trek and increase the gravity at ground level and/or put an engine on it and make it like a super cruise liner for tens of thousand of people to travel through the solar system. Then that would change the variable and you might consider some thing smaller, but other wise no.
Larry,
In the Lunar thread, you said, it was impossible to terraform the Moon.
Please check the Mercury thread with my link to the document about terraforming smaller bodies. I believe we can terraform the Moon and even much smaller bodies.
I also favour terraformation of Mars, Venus, the Moon, Callisto, Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Titania, Oberon (the 2 largest around Uranus) and Triton (the largest around Neptune), as well as Mercury - the only solid planet other than Earth that already has a significant magnetic field.
Yes, I did. Although I don't see how we could terraform the Moon with present technology or any technology within even the next fifty years or so. I would still support any prospect of terraforming the moon if I though it could be done. I read some where that if you poured out a class of water on the Moon that it would vaporize almost immediately, but it would take about two year for that water that water to leave the Moons influence. I realize that we are talking about more water like an entire comet of something, but you going to wind up with basically the same results. It might take a little longer, but the end results will still be same.
As far as I can see on the terraformation activities for the Moon would be to generate Magnetic field around the Moon to protect the people that might live there from radiation. I also read some where that the Moon also has a faint atmosphere too. It not very much, but it does have one. Now with a Magnetic field around the Moon, the solar wind would not be blowing the atmosphere away. But, even if we could do that, it would take century's for the moon to accrue much of an atmosphere, assuming that it would. Even to get the Moon at the level that Mars is right now.
Without one or more Technological break through that will change what we got to work with right now. Unless we can generate some kind of artificial energy field or some type of bubble of one type or another, no I don't see us Terraforming the Moon. At least not in the foreseeable future at any rate.
Larry,
Offline
I personally favor tarraforming Mars, Venus, the Earth moon, the four Moons of Jupiter, Saturn Moon Titian, Trenton on Neptune and I may or may not consider any of those asteroid. I would consider hollowing out those asteroid that are hundred miles or so, because you could put hundred million people inside and rotate the asteroid for gravity and have a pretty good habitat. But at some point it became not practical to tarraform some thing when it get too small unless you can create gravity platting like on Star Trek and increase the gravity at ground level and/or put an engine on it and make it like a super cruise liner for tens of thousand of people to travel through the solar system. Then that would change the variable and you might consider some thing smaller, but other wise no.
Larry,
In the Lunar thread, you said, it was impossible to terraform the Moon.
Please check the Mercury thread with my link to the document about terraforming smaller bodies. I believe we can terraform the Moon and even much smaller bodies.
I also favour terraformation of Mars, Venus, the Moon, Callisto, Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Titania, Oberon (the 2 largest around Uranus) and Triton (the largest around Neptune), as well as Mercury - the only solid planet other than Earth that already has a significant magnetic field.
Yes, I did. Although I don't see how we could terraform the Moon with present technology or any technology within even the next fifty years or so. I would still support any prospect of terraforming the moon if I though it could be done. I read some where that if you poured out a class of water on the Moon that it would vaporize almost immediately, but it would take about two year for that water that water to leave the Moons influence. I realize that we are talking about more water like an entire comet of something, but you going to wind up with basically the same results. It might take a little longer, but the end results will still be same.
As far as I can see on the terraformation activities for the Moon would be to generate Magnetic field around the Moon to protect the people that might live there from radiation. I also read some where that the Moon also has a faint atmosphere too. It not very much, but it does have one. Now with a Magnetic field around the Moon, the solar wind would not be blowing the atmosphere away. But, even if we could do that, it would take century's for the moon to accrue much of an atmosphere, assuming that it would. Even to get the Moon at the level that Mars is right now.
Without one or more Technological break through that will change what we got to work with right now. Unless we can generate some kind of artificial energy field or some type of bubble of one type or another, no I don't see us Terraforming the Moon. At least not in the foreseeable future at any rate.
Larry,
Of course, it's all theoretical - people have other priorities - Iraq, etc. There was no human on the Moon in 30 years, nobody is interested in colonizing/ terraforming.
I am not convinced that the atmosphere will disappear soon, I tend to believe the optimistic estimates (Have you read the link I gave in Mercury thread). Some estimate the Moon to hold the atmosphere for thousands, some for millions and some indefinitely. We won't know for sure. Massive atmospheres are different from a glass water in your example because of it mass and the way the atmosphere works - the upper areas reflect some light. I am not even sure that water from that glass will go into space, maybe it will be soaked by sand instead. The lost atmosphere can be topped up gradually.
As for bringing atmosphere to Luna - some people already posted about rediverting the asteroids - cheap and easy, at least, it's easier than shipping volatiles from other planets.
The ingredients of the atmosphere are important too. Nitrogen is pretty heavy. (Titan has less surface gravity than the Moon but has a very thick atmosphere). Water vapour will create clouds and reflect light. Extra frozen water will stay around the poles.
Anatoli Titarev
Offline
In the Lunar thread, you said, it was impossible to terraform the Moon.
Please check the Mercury thread with my link to the document about terraforming smaller bodies. I believe we can terraform the Moon and even much smaller bodies.
I also favour terraformation of Mars, Venus, the Moon, Callisto, Ganymede (Jupiter), Titan (Saturn), Titania, Oberon (the 2 largest around Uranus) and Triton (the largest around Neptune), as well as Mercury - the only solid planet other than Earth that already has a significant magnetic field.
Yes, I did. Although I don't see how we could terraform the Moon with present technology or any technology within even the next fifty years or so. I would still support any prospect of terraforming the moon if I though it could be done. I read some where that if you poured out a class of water on the Moon that it would vaporize almost immediately, but it would take about two year for that water that water to leave the Moons influence. I realize that we are talking about more water like an entire comet of something, but you going to wind up with basically the same results. It might take a little longer, but the end results will still be same.
As far as I can see on the terraformation activities for the Moon would be to generate Magnetic field around the Moon to protect the people that might live there from radiation. I also read some where that the Moon also has a faint atmosphere too. It not very much, but it does have one. Now with a Magnetic field around the Moon, the solar wind would not be blowing the atmosphere away. But, even if we could do that, it would take century's for the moon to accrue much of an atmosphere, assuming that it would. Even to get the Moon at the level that Mars is right now.
Without one or more Technological break through that will change what we got to work with right now. Unless we can generate some kind of artificial energy field or some type of bubble of one type or another, no I don't see us Terraforming the Moon. At least not in the foreseeable future at any rate.
Larry,
Of course, it's all theoretical - people have other priorities - Iraq, etc. There was no human on the Moon in 30 years, nobody is interested in colonizing/ terraforming.
I am not convinced that the atmosphere will disappear soon, I tend to believe the optimistic estimates (Have you read the link I gave in Mercury thread). Some estimate the Moon to hold the atmosphere for thousands, some for millions and some indefinitely. We won't know for sure. Massive atmospheres are different from a glass water in your example because of it mass and the way the atmosphere works - the upper areas reflect some light. I am not even sure that water from that glass will go into space, maybe it will be soaked by sand instead. The lost atmosphere can be topped up gradually.
As for bringing atmosphere to Luna - some people already posted about rediverting the asteroids - cheap and easy, at least, it's easier than shipping volatiles from other planets.
The ingredients of the atmosphere are important too. Nitrogen is pretty heavy. (Titan has less surface gravity than the Moon but has a very thick atmosphere). Water vapour will create clouds and reflect light. Extra frozen water will stay around the poles.
Now that un-called for atitarev. I will have you know that I'm not interested in fighting some illegal war in Iraq. Not only that on another Space forum I was pushing the idea that we should build a city on Mars of a hundred thousand people and we should do it in say a forty to fifty year time schedule from today’s date. Or make it a national goal like a Kennedy Moon Mission goal. Now this going to Mars to build that city would include building a city on the Moon of maybe five to ten thousand people twenty year period to test the equipment that we are going to use on Mars. Then you would probably be in your third or forth generation Earth Shuttle and your second generation Lunar Shuttle and maybe your second or third generation Mars shuttle. Then figure on building about two hundred deep space space ships of various types from passenger to cargo to mining ships. Then we would want to build a city in the L5 point with agro-Industry-Mining ships from the asteroid belt along dry dock and Ship building yards.
If you don't have that kind of infrastructure to start off with, "YOUR DAY DREAMING"!
Now how would I build that kind of infrastructure in fifty to sixty year time frame?
I would put the Federal Reserve through bankruptcy reorganization into either a new Third National bank or put it under a new Treasury Department. The only way that the United States is going to get out of the mess it in and be able to afford a space program is to put Federal Reserve through Bankruptcy. Once the U.S. Government has got control of over it own money system again as laid out in the U.S. Constitution, then they will have to generate new credit to restart the U.S. Economy.
Well how do you do that?
You build infrastructure, like subway, super trains, power plants, water project, space station, city on the moon, city on Mars, etc.
Instead of having Alan Greenspan generating trillion of dollars to finance Wall Street and those Big Banks and generating trillion of dollars debt for us to pay off, we will have the U.S. Government generating a trillion dollars of credit a year and plowing it into the physical economy as mentioned above. Even just hundred billion dollars of that credit that been generated ove a sixty your period would be six trillion dollars to use in space and there is absolutly no way you can get that kind of money from the private sector either.
Larry,
Offline
I lost you, Larry. I don't know what you wanted to say by your last post. I am not advocating settling the Moon instead of Mars, if you meant that and I am not accusing you of fighting an illegal war. My point was purely theoretical - meaning, we could do this, if we had the will and the money.
Anatoli Titarev
Offline
I lost you, Larry. I don't know what you wanted to say by your last post. I am not advocating settling the Moon instead of Mars, if you meant that and I am not accusing you of fighting an illegal war. My point was purely theoretical - meaning, we could do this, if we had the will and the money.
Oh, then I must have mis under stood what you were really saying. I have both the will and I know where we can get the money to do these major project.
What your talking about doing can't be done on some individual effors or groups of individual.
What your talking about doing can't even be done with private corporation or groups of private corporation. The project would still be too big to be done.
Even the United State with it present banking system could not do it or even if the rest of the world government joined in, it would still be too big a project. Because, currently the United State would have to tax the American people to build it and the money just isn't there to do that.
At the risk of going political on you and talking about economics or monitery policies and banking system. With a major over haul of the American banking system, tax code and other things, the United States is just not going to be in the position to terraform the moon, mars or any thing else for that matter. For more information on that go to the web site below. Not only did Kennedy make going to the moon a national mission, he was also going to back the Central Banking system and it back under government control. That would have brought the Central Banking and the power to generate credit to the Federal Government which would line up with the U.S. Constitution and what it says. Now a U.S. Government that Controls the Centrol Banking System which creates credit, tax's, regulates economy can not only build massive infrastructure down here, but can also build massive infrastructure in space too. Depending on who controls the Banking system, will also determines whether or not we build infrastructure too and how much get built. If the private bankers control the credit system and the Centrol bank which also encludes the Federal Reserve System, then you can pretty much forget about terraforming other bodies in space. Because, most of there credit goes into usury and money chasing money and generating larger debt. But if the Federal Government is generating the credit, they get first use of that credit and the amount of credit that the Federal Government is going to have to generate is about one trillion a year and one trillion dollars every year from here on out. What most people don't understand is, that there a hole in the economy. If there were no population increase, you would still have to generate 3% of new credit or that economy would implode. Now if you had a 3% increase in the population then you would need about 6% increase in the money supply or credit or new money. The U.S. Constitution give that power to generate that credit to the Federal Government of the United States and not to some private bank or Banking system like the Federal Reserve. The reason that I'm making such a big fuss over it, is: Currently Alan Greespan is generation over 4 to 5 trillion dollars or more this year. But, even if the central government get the Central Bank back and only generates one trillion dollars, there going to be investing in build infrastructure like FDR or Abraham Lincoln did or John F. Kennedy did.
You can build a lot of stuff with the power to generate credit like that. The government can use that credit like Hamilton did in the First National Bank and create self-extenguation debt. It basically is credit you used to build something you need like a subway or a space station and we figer it going to take us ten years to build it. So we setup a line to finance and build the project through the government power to generate credit, but we put a ten year exporation date. That mean in ten year that note expire where it payed off or nothing is payed on that debt, it still expires. The reason for generationg that credit in the first place, was to build that infrastructure and generate business activities in the private sector which create a productive work force and to build up the country. Once that credit has served that purpose, then it serve it usefull purpose and it time for it to go. That is if the government creates that credit, but if the private sector banks create that credit, well they make money from usury of the credit they generated and they don't cancel it out. It keeps being rolled over and over and they charge interest on interest.
This link show that John F. Kennedy tried to retake the Centrol Banking system and the power generate credit that go with it.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefedera … eserve.htm
I hope this clear up what I was trying to say. I could also give you other links that go into more detail as to what I'm trying to say.
Larry,
Offline
The nowaday economics and political situation has to do with the terraforming and generally space colonization less than the Space shuttle program with your federal budget in 1790. When such items come into agenda the status will be much too different. Indeed namely the private bussiness activity ONLY (strictly regulated under codex of special space laws issued by specialized global autorities like WTO and UN organs) could bring us in great scale into space. Hope, after several centuries the Earth generated incomes would represent a miniscule part of the Gross Human Product. On the new 'terraformitories' new political entities, hence new solar-political players should arrise -- the souvereinity establishment bussiness would be the ultimate evolutionary stage of the real estate property development one.
But, I think the theme for terraforming smaller bodies gone far from the point. I started it in order to be discussed the theoretical and physical plausibility of it. The next level is the economical feasibility -- do we have the money. The last step is to realize -- if we put the money in such project how much and when we`ll gain back from the investment. An equation with many variables. Even , you know, the restraint from certain economical action is measured in giving and taking money. If the profit pressuire is too big, the future humanity could forget again about the terraforming "ethical" issues. Or it may occur that it is totaly uneconomical to terraform some of the bodies. Matter of prices -- for air, machines, transport cost, bank credits..., the land per sq.km. at last.
The rough numbers for surface area of the terraformable according to Nordley lands:
Mercury - 75 000 000 sq.km.
Venus - 460 000 000 sq. km.
EARTH - 510 000 000 SQ.KM.
Moon - 38 000 000
Mars - 144 000 000 sq.km.
Ceres - 1 800 000 sq.km. (~Indonesia)
Vesta - 1 000 000 sq.km.
Pallas - 1 000 000 sq.km.
Only within the orbit of Jupiter we have ~ 721 millions of sq.km. of terraformable land ( about 1.5 times the total earth surface ). Around Jupiter the Gallileans offer another 45% of the earth`s surface area, So without Titan, Triton, Pluto, the others minor satelites and kuipertoides, we have twice the earth in terraformable land. If the terraforming costs represent tolerable part of the overall mankind economics, if the price for sq. km. meliorated , developed property and the freight fees are good -- than you know...
Offline
Over the longer term, people will want to use all the material efficiently.
That means creating a completely artificial solar system.
Earth and several artificial Earths might be left as theme parks,
historical reminders.
Offline
Some more data on planets/moons
Planet/Satellite Name Surface Area (square km) Observed surface gravity (m/s2)
Mercury 74,815,144 3.7
Venus 460,234,317 8.87
Earth 511,209,977 9.81
Moon 37,958,532 1.62
Mars 145,011,003 3.71
Io 41,396,452 1.79
Europa 30,935,401 1.31
Ganymede 86,986,441 1.42
Callisto 72,382,295 1.23
Titan 83,322,891 1.36
Titania 7,822,830 0.372
Oberon 7,277,449 0.346
Triton 22,902,210 0.783
Pluto 16,245,414 0.651
Charon 4,315,241 0.334
Anatoli Titarev
Offline
The nowaday economics and political situation has to do with the terraforming and generally space colonization less than the Space shuttle program with your federal budget in 1790. When such items come into agenda the status will be much too different. Indeed namely the private bussiness activity ONLY (strictly regulated under codex of special space laws issued by specialized global autorities like WTO and UN organs) could bring us in great scale into space. Hope, after several centuries the Earth generated incomes would represent a miniscule part of the Gross Human Product. On the new 'terraformitories' new political entities, hence new solar-political players should arrise -- the souvereinity establishment bussiness would be the ultimate evolutionary stage of the real estate property development one.
But, I think the theme for terraforming smaller bodies gone far from the point. I started it in order to be discussed the theoretical and physical plausibility of it. The next level is the economical feasibility -- do we have the money. The last step is to realize -- if we put the money in such project how much and when we`ll gain back from the investment. An equation with many variables. Even , you know, the restraint from certain economical action is measured in giving and taking money. If the profit pressuire is too big, the future humanity could forget again about the terraforming "ethical" issues. Or it may occur that it is totaly uneconomical to terraform some of the bodies. Matter of prices -- for air, machines, transport cost, bank credits..., the land per sq.km. at last.
So now we are dealing with the concept of wealth and how you measure it. If we are dealing with the concept of wealth they way most people think of wealth or what we were lead to believe is wealth. Then there won't be any Terraforming being done any where. Because it too expensive and there no return on your investment.
If you view money as wealth and to be pursued in your drive to obtain wealth. Then you would view Terraforming any moon or planet throwing money down rate hole. Because the infrastructure that your building to terraform some, will never be paid back to you. Even if you willed it to your grand children for several generation, both the principal and the interest even at 6% interest, could never be paid back. So trying to raise the money by either banks notes or selling stock won't work either.
However, if we have a different concept of wealth, that changes the variables a whole lot. For instance, if we view money as just a medium of exchange and nothing more. Which all money ever should be, just a medium exchange or save goods and service rendered in the past. But, the process of generating credit should be in regards to generation physical good and service or infrastructure for future use. But, real wealth is increasing the productive capacity of the labor force. An example of that would be working two hours so you can buy a bag a groceries. But, let say we increase your productive capability by 50% and now you can work one hour to buy the same bag of groceries. This would be another concept of wealth. You would view that credit created out of thin air as a mechanism for creating a more productive society and advancing the human race as wealth and not the other way around, like it is right now. You had this other concept of wealth and a sufficient number of Americans shared that opinion with you, then terraforming Mars would not be an issue and may terraforming other planets and moons would not be issue. Matter of fact we would already have a permanent base on the Moon and would have already been to Mars and maybe even setting up a permanent colony on Mars too.
A good example of this is Kennedy going to the Moon as a national mission or goal. For private individual, that is not doable. For private corporation it may or may not be doable with the money they may have at hand, but it would be a bad investment and they would probably go bankrupt, but before they could accomplish there mission. But, a government that controls it own money supply and credit, you can make some interesting things happen. If you go cheap, you actually lose money, but if you go more expensive rout, it actually cheaper. At first glance you may think that impossible, but it true. Let go back to our Moon mission, if we had the technology to go to the Moon 1963 when John F. Kennedy made that declaration to go to the Moon then we would have only made about 3 to 4 dollars for every 1 dollar invested in that Moon Mission. I say only, because that for every project like that they use current technology only rolls over about 3 or four time. But, the moon mission because we had to develop new technology to go to the moon rolled over 14 because of the technological spin off of that new technology. In other words it rolled another 10 more than it would have other, because of the new technology that developed. Kennedy understood this process, so he had a Lunar base planed and a Mars Mission. He knew we wanted to just wanted to pass through the chemical rockets and fission power and then pass through fission power to fusion powered. He was looking for that technological spin off return to the U.S economy. That why your concept of what wealth is, will either limit you or will give you the ability to achieve your goal complete on the way that you thinking. In some respects, what going on in your head can be a bigger impediment to terraforming than neither having the technology or the infrastructure in place. If we don't have the technology, we can develop it. If we don't have the infrastructure, we can build it. If we have a wrong idea as to what wealth is or money, then were screwed when it comes to terraforming, because we will try to make it happen in a system that can't work.
But, Kennedy sent us to the Moon, but George Bush can only make promises, but as things stand, we can’t even get back to the moon. Because, the United States can’t afford it. That the difference between the two different ways of thinking and the way they view Monetary and banking policies.
Larry,
Offline
Republic, with the same arguments you easily could prove that the conrtinental colonisation done by the europeans between 1500-1900 is not possible.
Regard the intrinsic for the economy bootstraping and self-feeding in the exchange loops by the products incrementally obtained by the activity itself.
Offline
Back to the topic:
Smallest round bodies in the System are either moons or taxonomied as asteroids.
For example asteroid 4 Vesta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4_Vesta]ht … ki/4_Vesta
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/vesta.htm … /vesta.htm (for views)
Its shape is quite irregular due to impacts, but generally is round due to its selfgravity, hence it falls into the category of 'planet' according to Gibor Basri`s classification.
With mass of 2.71 E 20, diameter of 516 km.s and density of 3.8 tonnes per cubic meter Vesta has surface gravity of 0.028 of the Earth`s.
Comparable (falling in the same Nordley`s group) with Ceres, Pallas, Dione, Rhea, Iapetus, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon, Charon, 2004DW, Sedna...
and bigger than offered by the 1% gees` group of Mimas, Enceladus, Tethis, Miranda, Ixion, Varuna, Quaoar...
so if we consider the upper suitable for terraforming we can`t neglect 4Vesta in the same respect.
The body of Vesta should need partial or global doming, most probably, because of its little planetary raduis.
Look at the pictures and the topographical map rendering of this little planet from the links above. Notice the big ringlike valey which is produced by huge impact in the 'bottom' side of the body. It is about 10 km. lower than the average surface and has hundreds of thousands square kms. area.
Cover it with transperant roof designed to withstand the internal presure of 0.5 to 1 Bars. Put a statite in halo orbit hovering dynamically over this pole, which to concentrate and redirect the necessary amount of sunlight toward the terraformed crater ring of land...This is the closest to the nowaday tech.
Open sky dynamicaly contra-airleakage designs could be discussed, too.
Offline
Republic, with the same arguments you easily could prove that the conrtinental colonisation done by the europeans between 1500-1900 is not possible.
Regard the intrinsic for the economy bootstraping and self-feeding in the exchange loops by the products incrementally obtained by the activity itself.
My point is, with out the right kind of banking system, it will be impossible to colonize space. I have gotten into this argument on other space forums.
FDR restarted the U.S. Economy by generating Government credit and loaning that out to build the infrastructure like dam, power plants, roads, rail roads, museums, etc. He could loan it out at 0% to 2% interest. Now if he had to have gone through those private banks, he never would have been able to finance the American Recovery after the 1929 stock market crash. Also the United States was primarily built up by Federal credit system with State involvement and you have the private inventors and ownership of business and farms. But, it was the Federal and State Governments that built the rail roads and it was engineered by Army Core or Engineers. The transcontinental rail road was an Abraham Lincoln thing, done through the Federal Government. Trains were invented in 1829. Abraham Lincoln hear about those trains and what they do in 1832 and proposes that we build a transcontinental rail road across the entire country. In 1838, Illinois has the biggest rail road in the world. Over the next forty or fifty years the rail road was being built by either Federal or State government and even being run by the Government. In 1949 we have the California gold rush. We have about 100,000 people in California, but no infrastructure like paved roads or rail roads and only about 20,000 of the 100,000 are women. Just before the American Civil War, there taking trains to California around the horn of South America to start building rail roads in California. By the time of the American Civil War we had about 40,000 miles of track built by either the Federal or State Government. In the middle of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln signs the transcontinental rail road act in 1862. In 1865, we start building the transcontinental rail road. In 1869 we are pounding the golden stake at promitory Utah to commemorate the finishing of the transcontinental rail road.
Look at these two web site, for more information.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefedera … eserve.htm
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/sp … /space.htm
If we really want to get serious about colonizing space, it going to be a combination of being a government project with private enterprise configuration. It will be the government that chooses to built the city on the Moon or Mars and finance big space station that might hold entire city inside. The Federal Government is the only source for building that kind of infrastructure to support that kind of population in space.
Now having said that, we don't want the government in the air line business or space line business or in the tourist business or the hotel business or the farming business or the manufacturing business or the groceries and department store business. Here is were we would want private enterprise in. But, we would want the government to control some of the vital parts of that space city like life support system, water, electricity, subways system, healthcare, etc., but we may have private sub-contractor to do some of the work on that government owned infrastructure.
Larry,
Offline
Martian Republic, I agree that a subject having enormous amount of money, i.e. namely the strong governments collecting and redistributing on average, between 30% and 50% of the GNP from the taxpayers, should get involved in all big space projects. Just because of they are too expensive. At least in the very begining, till the major part of the Gross Human Product is still made here on earth, the earth governments shall play big role in the space infrastructure development...
The example with your transcontinental railway system was splendid one.
But, I think that this topic deserves opening of a new theme and its place is not in the thread conserning the theoretical feasibility of terraforming smaller bodies in purely physical sence.
Please, open a new one for the economics of terraforming. I`ll participate activelly.
Offline