Funding for terraforming

EarthWolf · 2004-08-06 09:51:48

Hello,

I've read a few papers and a novel in which terraforming has been an issue. My question is: Where would the funding for a terraforming project come from? Since terraforming would take generations, I imagine that interest for private investment would be rather lukewarm without the anticipation of a quick return on the money invested. Would the money have to come from funds donated by national governments with interest in a terraformed Mars, perhaps like United Nations dues?

Cordially,

EarthWolf

MarsDog · 2004-08-06 11:03:12

The settlers will have their own economy, only slightly interacting with Earth.
Priority will be trade with spaceships and tubeworlds.
Mars will be changed as a result of leaks from the greenhouses.
Letting the heat and air out of the greenhouses, creating a heavy atmosphere,
would hamper easy access to space.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-06 11:20:56

Letting the heat and air out of the greenhouses, creating a heavy atmosphere,
would hamper easy access to space.

But it has other obvious advantages.

If we want easy access to space we should build O'neill colonies. If we're going to settle a planet, we might as well make it the best planet it can be, from our perspective.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-06 12:35:02

I've read a few papers and a novel in which terraforming has been an issue. My question is: Where would the funding for a terraforming project come from? Since terraforming would take generations, I imagine that interest for private investment would be rather lukewarm without the anticipation of a quick return on the money invested. Would the money have to come from funds donated by national governments with interest in a terraformed Mars, perhaps like United Nations dues?

The funding for the terraformation of Mars is going to come from the Martian Central Government once on is setup. I'm assuming that there going to have a Government owned and operated Central Banking system that can generate it own credit. If it doesn't, it won't make any difference, because you won't have enough people on Mars to make the effort of terraforming of Mars an issue. But, assuming that we have a central government on Mars that controls it own banking system and can generate credit and operate in the best interest of the Martian people. The central government of Mars would setup an agency to take on the task of terraforming Mars. The Martian Terraforming Agency would sub-contract out to private contractors to build certain portion of the infrastructure that would go into the process of terraforming Mars. But, you would want The Martian Terraforming Agency owning the actual infrastructure, but private contractor might be issued contracts to maintain it. Most of the funding for it would come from the Martian Central Government and generated credit by that government. Otherwise, there would be no other way to finance the terraformation or any ability to maintain a terraformed Mars once completed.

Larry,

Dook · 2004-08-06 15:35:44

The martian government or any government simply prints as much as it needs. The money goes out and makes it's way down to the people who spend like crazy because, heck, the government just prints more. The cause, prices go up and the worth of the dollar goes down. A loaf of bread in Germany was $1 billion marks.

So what does your government do to solve it? It prints more money. Completely insane. I suggest you enroll in an economics class and pay close attention.

karov · 2004-08-07 13:21:13

According to the international law every natural object above the atmosphere belongs to the whole mankind. No nation or other international law entity could put under its own sovereignity no space object or astronomical body. In that respect no terrestrial autority, yet, can not provide one with property rights over territory or else - part of a space object. We have not the necesarry institutions to regulate the space business. But we have the recepie to establish such: the Antarctic treaty organisation, the international law about the oceanic resourses, the WTO...

I think that centuries in the future the global Mars, Lunar... or other planet`s affairs could be comfortably governed from such autorities. The example of the Second British empire -- mutilevel transition in Commonwealth of independent but connected nations is a good example for incremental increase of the local self-government without revolutions and violent 'liberation'...

For each activity or project a specially designed institution, interacting effectivelly with the rest of the institutional complex network in the Solar system, could and should be designed.

For regulating the terraformation activity as well. For 'nationality', residentship and migrational affairs... Money transfers... Biocontrol. Pentitentiary law and police forces.

The globalisation and rapidly growing of the private sector in traditionally state works are also an example.

EarthWolf · 2004-08-07 14:24:29

Hello,

Actually, I wasn't inferring about property rights on Mars, simply as to where the funds for a potential terraforming project might come from.

Cordially,

EarthWolf

Martian Republic · 2004-08-07 15:05:17

Hello,
Actually, I wasn't inferring about property rights on Mars, simply as to where the funds for a potential terraforming project might come from.
Cordially,
EarthWolf

I tried to answer your question. I all these other people that didn't answer your question.

But, there are a few people that don't like my answer, but I did give a respectable answer.

Larry,

Dook · 2004-08-07 20:30:43

I think it can only come from a government funded department such as NASA or whatever the EU equally has.

I don't see private donations coming anywhere close to the amount needed to even make a beginning effort of terraforming.

The thing is it's a natural evolution of exploring the universe, a stepping stone as someone posted. First you have to get humans there and home safely, then go back and conduct science, more landings, longer stays, experiments with domes and plants, warming, atmosphere (it's C02, I know) then the public will go along with the whole terraforming thing. You can't hit them with "Lets go to mars and make it like the earth" at one time. It's all too far in the future for them. One stone at a time.

karov · 2004-08-08 07:12:42

I think that property right issues and these concerning real estates - plots of martian land ownership, as a major economical topic is tighly connected with the question about terraformation funding.

Terraforming of Mars will become practical problem when enough numerous critical mass of humans accumulate there as residents, when the overall martain economy is already in size big enough to be planned such activity. The generations long project would not be so unacceptable for a local population cause the future inhabitants would be an offspring of the founders. Of course the local resourses hardly would be enough, but other imported for Mars funding inevitably will be included. Such foreign investments should be payed somehow. The terraformed Mars territory is more expensive than the non-changed, so the interplanetary credit could be mortraged with land propery rights. The role of the martian 'government' will be a key one cause it will chose the final parameters of the terraformation and will regulate the activity of the involved participating organisations. The treasury funding could come from say, kind of 'terraformation tax' accounted according to the lenght of stay of the different physical persons, or through making an 'ecological' legislature which encourages attitude promoting the terraformation. In exchange for mining rights, pehubs, if appear to be economical to mine martian resourses for export or domed lands development -- like in some developed countries it is allowed the strip mining but one is obligated to restore the environment in its initial state. The martain investors can be tax exempted if they, say release this and that quantity of certain gasses, cut channels, deploy orbital mirrors with positive side effects of they basic activity in favour of the terraforming plan.

The terraforming wouldn`t be a single project.

samy · 2006-01-25 20:59:35

I don't believe that governments will be willing to spend the kind of money that is needed to colonize, not for 50-100 years still, maybe more.

If the first steps are to be taken in 10-50 years, they will be made by private enterprise, and led by people like Branson, Bezos and Rutan.

I do think that with people like that in the helms of big business, we will see colonization coming from commercial space tourism, rather than governmental space exploration. Governments are too slow.

Apollo · 2006-01-25 21:40:21

Hello? anyone on here? I think we should terraform Mars... Nitrogen from Titan
(Saturn's largest moon) could be used,,,

samy · 2006-01-25 22:22:46

Wouldn't nitrogen from Venus require less energy to transport?

Austin Stanley · 2006-01-26 05:49:18

It would take considearbly less energy to transport, but extracting it is tricky. Venus's atmosphere is only ~4% Nitrogen, so a considerable amount of air will be have to be collected and processed before you get anything usefull. On top of that, Venus is an incredibly hellish place, so the entire operation will have to based in orbit, while Titan provides a quite nice operating platform.

However, the energy considerations are considerable. It would take a lot less delta-V to get the air from Venus to Mars then it would Titan to Mars. The trips are a lot shorter as well. And since Venus is so close to the sun, it's a prime target for use of a Solar Sail as a delivery method.

samy · 2006-01-26 08:51:17

Some thoughts:

* What about not bothering with separating N from CO2, and just shipping the whole 96:3 mixture as-is to Mars from Venus? Maybe deal with the CO2 on the Mars end, binding it to the biosphere there? Could they use any CO2 or do they already have more than enough?

* The Landis aerostat theory seems viable for Venus, and gas processing is going to be a crucial tech for the aerostats. If we use unmanned aerostats, gas processing can even be their whole singular purpose. Assuming minor investment in gas processing tech, would it be reasonable to assume that gas processing the N from Venus and shipping to Mars would take less energy than mining from the easier Titan and shipping to Mars? If we have manned aerostats, they're going to want to have surplus nitrogen production anyway, to have storages of nitrogen for emergency purposes.

Austin Stanley · 2006-01-26 23:52:50

* What about not bothering with separating N from CO2, and just shipping the whole 96:3 mixture as-is to Mars from Venus? Maybe deal with the CO2 on the Mars end, binding it to the biosphere there? Could they use any CO2 or do they already have more than enough?

Not such a good idea. Mars seems to have great deal of CO2 present in it's ice caps, more than enough. Especialy since CO2 is poisonous to us in even low concentrations. I guess a CO2 heavy atmosphere is better than no atmosphere at all, but not by alot. We would be better off converting that CO2 into O2 and sending that to Mars, though there seems to be plenty of that there as well.

In either case, the energy costs of seperating the elements we desire from the ones we don't is much less then the amount of energy it would take to transport the unrefined materails to Mars. However, in Titan's case, we could use all the elements of it's atmosphere, so sending it back unrefined makes more sense.

The Landis aerostat theory seems viable for Venus, and gas processing is going to be a crucial tech for the aerostats. If we use unmanned aerostats, gas processing can even be their whole singular purpose. Assuming minor investment in gas processing tech, would it be reasonable to assume that gas processing the N from Venus and shipping to Mars would take less energy than mining from the easier Titan and shipping to Mars? If we have manned aerostats, they're going to want to have surplus nitrogen production anyway, to have storages of nitrogen for emergency purposes.

It would certianly take less energy (even with refining) but that doesn't mean it would cost less. Venus aerostats are going to be difficult and expensive to construct, while a colony on Titain is probably going to be much simpler.

samy · 2006-01-27 00:54:13

Venus aerostats are going to be difficult and expensive to construct, while a colony on Titain is probably going to be much simpler.

What makes you say that?

* Venus is more easily accessible than Titan. Distance: Venus wins.

* Venus aerostats are based on hot air balloon/zeppelin design, with which mankind has centuries of experience. Titan airtight domes are basically untested, undeveloped tech. Simplicity of tech: Venus wins.

* Venus 50km altitude is the most Earthlike environment in the solar system. No pressure differential = no explosive decompression if punctured. Habitable temperature, easy access to oxygen and nitrogen for breathing air. Environment: Venus wins.

* No pressure differential = much less mechanical stress for envelope to resist. Venusian aerostats can be constructed of more lightweight material, as long as we pick a suitably acid-resistant one. Actually building on Titan will require metal/rock style heavy construction in order to withstand the pressure differential. Venus will do with acid-resistant cloth bags. Lighter, cheaper materials. Weight and price: Venus wins.

Why do you think Titan would be cheaper or easier? It seems to me to be further away, and environmentally much more demanding.

Austin Stanley · 2006-01-28 00:29:42

* Venus is more easily accessible than Titan. Distance: Venus wins.

True enough. However, Venus's gravity is much higher (even at the altitudes we are talking about), which makes getting of the planet much more difficult. Titan has to worry Saturn's gravity (as well as radiation belts). On the other hand, Venus is much closer to the sun, which also creates more intense radiation worries.

* Venus aerostats are based on hot air balloon/zeppelin design, with which mankind has centuries of experience. Titan airtight domes are basically untested, undeveloped tech. Simplicity of tech: Venus wins.

These aerostats are going to require some sort of large scale air-tight system that an outpost on Titan would require. And while we may have some experience building blimps and zepplins, these are a far cry from the mega-aerostats that are going to be necessary in the Venutian atmosphere. In Titan's favor, the only disaster they have to worry about is an puncture, which isn't necessarily deadly considering the atmosphere isn't poisionus, just nearly cryogenic. A Venutian aerostat would have to worry about leaks and failure of there blimps, which would lead to terrible plumet of doom to the planet surface.

* Venus 50km altitude is the most Earthlike environment in the solar system. No pressure differential = no explosive decompression if punctured. Habitable temperature, easy access to oxygen and nitrogen for breathing air. Environment: Venus wins.

The atmosphere is still full of toxic CO2, it's not like you can go out without a mask. Titan's atmosphere is slightly thicker than Earths (1.5atm), but not to a troublesome degree. The outpost could be be run at either overpressure (to prevent atmosphere incursion) or normal Earth pressures, which ever proves more benifical. People can stand either. It is cold, but protection from the cold and and an oxygen supply are all that would be required. Heck, you could use your oxygen supply to burn some of the methane in the atmosphere to give you the heat you needed. And while Nitrogen and Oxygen are present on Venus, the Nitrogen is fairly rare, and you have to break down the CO2 to get O2, which isn't that easy. Titan has plenty of Nitrogen, and O2 is easy to get from water electrolisis.

Furthermore, the surface of Titan is as bad as it gets. Plunge deeper into the Venutian atmosphere, and you are into some bad trouble. Aerostats should also be possible on Titan, hot air-ballons would work realy well there.

* No pressure differential = much less mechanical stress for envelope to resist. Venusian aerostats can be constructed of more lightweight material, as long as we pick a suitably acid-resistant one. Actually building on Titan will require metal/rock style heavy construction in order to withstand the pressure differential. Venus will do with acid-resistant cloth bags. Lighter, cheaper materials. Weight and price: Venus wins.

Even at high altitudes Venus still has signifigant gravity, much higher than Titans. So in fact the structures would have to be stronger than they are on Titan. Also, the Aerostats are going to require some HUGE mega-structures. CO2 does allow for more boyancy than our atmospher, but not by alot. To support any amount of weight you are going to need some large gas bags. And as I pointed out earlier, the pressure diffrence on Titan is not realy a big deal. People can easily function at much higher atmospheric pressures, but even if they couldn't, resisting half an atmosphere of pressure is chump change. Also, Titan habitats can be constructed out of native material, which will not be so easy on Venus.

Which brings on my last, most critical point. An outpost on Titan has access to all the material it needs for construction and expansion. Getting minerals on Venus is going to be VERY difficult, as people and equipment simply can't function for long periods of time on the surface. Furthermore, Titan has easy access to huge amounts of water for drinking and rocketfuel. Venus is very hydrogen poor, and so getting a large enough supply of water just for the colonists needs will be difficult. Fueling rockets will be just about impossible.

samy · 2006-01-28 03:16:26

These aerostats are going to require some sort of large scale air-tight system that an outpost on Titan would require.

Yes, both would need an airtight system; only the Venusian one would not be subject to as much mechanical stress as the Titanian. (The Venusian one would be subject to more acidic stress though, and the Titanian to more cryogenic stress.)

And while we may have some experience building blimps and zepplins, these are a far cry from the mega-aerostats that are going to be necessary in the Venutian atmosphere.

The principles at work are the same. The point is, this is tested and well understood tech, while scientists are even still struggling with biospheres in deserts and Antarctica on Earth. Sure, there are additional complexities in adapting the balloon tech to Venus - I'm not saying it's as simple as taking the exact blueprints for Hindenburg and building it on Venus. But the tech being long-tested, long-used, and well-understood is a significant bonus.

In Titan's favor, the only disaster they have to worry about is an puncture, which isn't necessarily deadly considering the atmosphere isn't poisionus, just nearly cryogenic.

Try breathing Titanian air and then tell me it isn't poisonous. "Nearly" cryogenic? I daresay your lungs would be pretty dead after taking one whiff.

But yes, both the Venusian and the Titanian scenarios will have to worry about punctures. The difference is, a Titanian puncture will result in explosive compression because the air pressure is less on the inside of the dome. A Venusian puncture is less dramatic because the pressure is same on the outside and inside, and thus the atmosphere will not blast in or out. It may leak out slowly, but not blast in or out like the Titanian interior atmosphere would. This means the Venusian puncture is less severe and more easily repairable than the Titanian.

A Venutian aerostat would have to worry about leaks and failure of there blimps, which would lead to terrible plumet of doom to the planet surface.

A Titanian dome will be just as "terrible" and "doomed" if it fails - the difference being that the Venusian scenario has more available repair time.

The atmosphere is still full of toxic CO2, it's not like you can go out without a mask.

No, you can't go out without a breathing mask on Venus, but then, I don't think any of us were arguing that you can do that anywhere in the solar system except on Earth. You'd have to have a breathing mask on Titan, too. However, you'd have to have more than that, as well. A naked human can survive with a breathing mask in 50C carbon dioxide (like on Venus). A naked human cannot survive with only a breatihng mask in -180C nitrogen (like on Titan). The demands on Titan are therefore harsher. In any case, colonists would spend the bulk of their time inside their domes anyway, in breathable air, so this is not much of an issue - although expeditions to the outside (for example, for repair purposes) would be easier on Venus.

Titan's atmosphere is slightly thicker than Earths (1.5atm), but not to a troublesome degree.

Thanks for making me check. I hadn't realized Titan's atmosphere was that thick! Nice.

The outpost could be be run at either overpressure (to prevent atmosphere incursion) or normal Earth pressures, which ever proves more benifical. People can stand either. It is cold, but protection from the cold and and an oxygen supply are all that would be required.

Kind of like on Venus, except on Venus no protection from cold would be required. Resisting -180C colds requires more than just a thick parka. You'd have to wear some pretty heavy suits to go outside the habitat on Titan. As long as you stay at cloudtop altitudes on Venus, you can almost shirtsleeve it (as long as you have the same breathing apparatus that would be needed on Titan). Thicker clothing against the trace amounts of H2SO4 in the atmosphere would be nice - the acid is a minor problem, but nowhere near as crucial as the cold you'd instantly be exposed to on Titan outside the habitat.

Heck, you could use your oxygen supply to burn some of the methane in the atmosphere to give you the heat you needed.

Of course, on Venus, heat and solar energy are plentiful and easily accessible as-is.

And while Nitrogen and Oxygen are present on Venus, the Nitrogen is fairly rare, and you have to break down the CO2 to get O2, which isn't that easy. Titan has plenty of Nitrogen, and O2 is easy to get from water electrolisis.

I agree that the necessary elements *are* easier to obtain on Titan. They are obtainable on both spheres, though. I do concede it'd be easier on Titan, but it wouldn't be impossible on Venus either.

Furthermore, the surface of Titan is as bad as it gets. Plunge deeper into the Venutian atmosphere, and you are into some bad trouble.

Point taken. On Venus, it is possible to end up in more hazardous zones than the habitat's natural area. It should be noted however that we're talking about habitat destruction level events here, and habitats can be destroyed on Titan too.

Aerostats should also be possible on Titan, hot air-ballons would work realy well there.

Though I'm not sure what the point would be, since aerial areas on Titan are not more attractive than the surface. (Unlike Venus, where the aerial areas are much more attractive than the surface.)

Even at high altitudes Venus still has signifigant gravity, much higher than Titans. So in fact the structures would have to be stronger than they are on Titan.

Point taken.

Also, the Aerostats are going to require some HUGE mega-structures. CO2 does allow for more boyancy than our atmospher, but not by alot. To support any amount of weight you are going to need some large gas bags.

This is true. The exact figures are in the vicinity of (quoting here) "A one-kilometer diameter spherical envelope will lift 700,000 tons (two Empire state buildings). A
two-kilometer diameter envelope would lift 6 million tons."

Size would certainly be necessary.

And as I pointed out earlier, the pressure diffrence on Titan is not realy a big deal. People can easily function at much higher atmospheric pressures, but even if they couldn't, resisting half an atmosphere of pressure is chump change.

I suppose so. I guess the cold is really what will do it for Titan; you'll still have to wear some comparatively heavy suits while outside habitats.

Also, Titan habitats can be constructed out of native material, which will not be so easy on Venus. Which brings on my last, most critical point. An outpost on Titan has access to all the material it needs for construction and expansion. Getting minerals on Venus is going to be VERY difficult, as people and equipment simply can't function for long periods of time on the surface. Furthermore, Titan has easy access to huge amounts of water for drinking and rocketfuel. Venus is very hydrogen poor, and so getting a large enough supply of water just for the colonists needs will be difficult. Fueling rockets will be just about impossible.

Excellent points. You've certainly managed to sway me a little towards Titan, though I certainly don't think Venus is implausible either. Both certainly have their pros and cons, and I suppose I could live with either choice.

karov · 2006-01-30 09:56:19

Hmmm. First, the density of the Titanian air is ~4 times greater than on sea level on earth. The PRESSURE is 1.5 times bigger. Even in heaviest spacesuit any human will be chilled by the -180C wind in minutes. The air IS poisonous - it contains 5-6% methane... Thus it is explosive indeed if leaks in O2 air in a habitat. But the disadvantages of such environment are compensated in great degree by advantages -- in that cold the water ice is hard as quarz, perfect constructional material... the deep cold means better and more efficient heat machines. Out-door superconductivity... etc.

Second, WHY??? do you think it is more economical to import nytrogen to Mars from Venus, than from Titan. Please explain.

Earthfirst · 2006-01-30 14:22:20

Lottery tickets would be a good way to fund a big project like mars.

samy · 2006-01-30 17:14:30

I think his point was that construction and maintenance will be much easier on Titan due to easy access to solids, nitrogen and oxygen, and because those are much easier to get, that offsets some (or all) of the delta v requirement. Venus is cheaper to ship things from but solids, nitrogen and oxygen are more difficult to mine (though all are certainly present on Venus in great quantities).

I'm still a little on Venus' side, but he does make good points for Titan.

karov · 2006-01-31 07:26:50

Venus is cheaper to ship things from but solids, nitrogen and oxygen are more difficult to mine (though all are certainly present on Venus in great quantities).
I'm still a little on Venus' side, but he does make good points for Titan.

I think you are wrong. Why Venus cheaper?

samy · 2006-01-31 08:13:29

It would take considearbly less energy to transport

karov · 2006-01-31 12:30:10

Why going "up" ( from Venus to Mars ) , to need "considerably more" energy than going "down" from ( Saturn to Mars)?

I think we could even PRODUCE energy from the higher specific orbital energy of the mass falling from Saturnian to Martian orbit, and this extra energy to power the other terraformation needs...

Please prove your statement.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-06 09:51:48

Re: Funding for terraforming

#2 2004-08-06 11:03:12

Re: Funding for terraforming

#3 2004-08-06 11:20:56

Re: Funding for terraforming

#4 2004-08-06 12:35:02

Re: Funding for terraforming

#5 2004-08-06 15:35:44

Re: Funding for terraforming

#6 2004-08-07 13:21:13

Re: Funding for terraforming

#7 2004-08-07 14:24:29

Re: Funding for terraforming

#8 2004-08-07 15:05:17

Re: Funding for terraforming

#9 2004-08-07 20:30:43

Re: Funding for terraforming

#10 2004-08-08 07:12:42

Re: Funding for terraforming

#11 2006-01-25 20:59:35

Re: Funding for terraforming

#12 2006-01-25 21:40:21

Re: Funding for terraforming

#13 2006-01-25 22:22:46

Re: Funding for terraforming

#14 2006-01-26 05:49:18

Re: Funding for terraforming

#15 2006-01-26 08:51:17

Re: Funding for terraforming

#16 2006-01-26 23:52:50

Re: Funding for terraforming

#17 2006-01-27 00:54:13

Re: Funding for terraforming

#18 2006-01-28 00:29:42

Re: Funding for terraforming

#19 2006-01-28 03:16:26

Re: Funding for terraforming

#20 2006-01-30 09:56:19

Re: Funding for terraforming

#21 2006-01-30 14:22:20

Re: Funding for terraforming

#22 2006-01-30 17:14:30

Re: Funding for terraforming

#23 2006-01-31 07:26:50

Re: Funding for terraforming

#24 2006-01-31 08:13:29

Re: Funding for terraforming

#25 2006-01-31 12:30:10

Re: Funding for terraforming

Board footer