"Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2018-04-23 23:18:27

Special Report topics:
- Mars consortia, to apply the best technology toward Mars habitation and industry
- Frontier commerce, in the spirit of the First Transcontinental Railroad
- Regional terraformation, for natural resources and improved environment at a selected Mars site
- Redirecting space mining investment: a possible shift from asteroids to Mars, for cost-effective mining and a Strategic Rare-Metal Reserve

Title and Link:
"Developing Mars"
https://room.eu.com/article/410.pdf

Abstract:
When people begin to live on Mars it is inevitable that fledgling businesses will spring up at permanent habitats. While there are a growing number of plans to transport people to the Red Planet, and even set up the first colonies, much remains to be done on the practicalities of settlement. Added resources such as ground heat, water and increased atmospheric pressure can be instrumental. The Lake Matthew Team (LMT) has invented the Mars Terraformer Transfer (MATT) to fill that void. In this bold vision the LMT proposes using laser-deflection technology to redirect a small celestial body to a 2036 Mars impact. The plan to create an impact crater, called "Omaha Crater", with lake, immense facilities and even summer plant life is innovative and not without risk. In this exclusive Special Report for ROOM two of those involved outline the idea and its ambitious goals, with a focus on the backbone of strategic and commercial opportunity.

First paragraphs:
This article introduces and outlines the MATT terraformation process and several core businesses that can put the terraformation resources to practical use. In doing so, it draws on analogies from frontier businesses of the First Transcontinental Railroad and the California Gold Rush in 19th-century America.

Terraformation resources can sustain and protect subaqueous natural-light habitation structures (‘habs’). Habs can be spacious, with practical scaling comparable to the largest terrestrial stadiums. This goal might seem unreasonable or impractical at first glance. However, the LMT has taken time to evaluate a suitable impactor and target site, and to detail reliable methods for a practical mission plan - practical in the programme-management sense of being attainable within reasonable constraints on time, money and resources. The mission plan completes a regional Mars terraformation in 2036, in good time to help pioneering crews...

Last edited by Lake Matthew Team - Cole (2018-04-25 15:01:00)

Void · 2018-04-25 19:27:57

I like it.

Frankly I have seen some parts of it before, a long time ago.

No certain method to deflect the asteroid, but they intended to cut it into pieces and have them hit sequentially, digging a very deep hole.

It was supposed that plants could start growing at the bottom of it and that it would by itself terraform the whole planet.

They did not have a plan for U.V., that I can recall.

Also by converting CO2 into O2 and plant matter of course the planet might become colder. There is still a lot to learn about what material resources may be found on Mars. But I suppose to compensate, humans could manipulate greenhouse gasses and other things.

Still holes that are deep enough for a body of water to exist due to induced geothermal heat, and raised pressure, would be good places to locate cities, if it is not possible to elevate the entire atmospheric pressure of Mars in a reasonable time.

I wonder also if your impact causes a gain or loss of atmosphere.

You might also consider using an impactor to strike a deep ice deposit, creating a long term ice covered reservoir. It could be quite useful as well.

If you can have one impact, why not others.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-04-25 19:29:05)

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2018-07-27 15:17:50

Void wrote:

holes that are deep enough for a body of water to exist due to induced geothermal heat, and raised pressure, would be good places to locate cities, if it is not possible to elevate the entire atmospheric pressure of Mars in a reasonable time.
I wonder also if your impact causes a gain or loss of atmosphere.

Right, there's no net change in atmospheric mass, just a localized pressure increase on the new crater floor, to a seasonally-averaged pressure of ~ 1.3 kPa. Enough for a lake and other reservoirs.

Void wrote:

You might also consider using an impactor to strike a deep ice deposit, creating a long term ice covered reservoir. It could be quite useful as well.

The impactor does in fact strike ice. The specifics are under NDA, but the selected target site is clearly ice-rich.

The resulting lake would be at least partially ice-covered through much of the year, unavoidably, due to the cold atmosphere above.

Void wrote:

If you can have one impact, why not others.

Did you see our note on asteroid 2005 LF8?

Void · 2018-07-28 16:36:20

Lake Matthew Team - Cole,

I would encourage you to keep being unreasonable people.

To be honest however, I do have to be a bit of a skeptic. The idea moves in a good direction, but;
1) Even if you can create Ozone in the "Hole", I wonder how it remains there against the wind. I also wonder how it remains stable, in the presence of the rock of the crater walls, and in the presence of CO and CO2 it may very well react with chemically. Without Ozone, you would not have any reasonable hope of an external biosphere of significant value to the purpose of terraforming.
2) The heat will keep ice melted or evaporated. That is a problem. Moisture tends to move from a source of heat and condense at cold spots. How do you keep the moisture from migrating to the polar ice caps? Won't you end up with a dry crater bottom? Yes, if you continue to melt ice and have a canal refill the lake fine. But I am not sure how much help the crater is then.
3) Day night and seasonal temperature flux. How much atmosphere would you need to avoid nightly freezes outside of the lake? Again, very much against the survival of significant plant cover.
4) What are you going to do about dust storms?

…..

I don't like to be a party pooper, but I will continue.....

If I were to adapt your plan, I would modify it to hit the north polar ice cap. Reasons:
1) The North Polar ice cap is one of the places that water evaporated on Mars elsewhere wants to migrate to just now. So you corner one of the places where precipitation occurs.
2) Ice mass. Obviously the cap largely melted will provide a capture of most of the heat of impact, where, an impact of mostly rock, will flash radiate much more of the energy of impact to the universe, rather quickly.
3) Not a very satisfying solution, but can we consider applying Tholins to the ice, in hopes of filtering out U.V.? Tholins are speculated to be the way early Earth was protected from U.V.
4) Having this sort of method prepared, might we also hope that large scale Solar, Fission, and Fusion may be used to further keep the ice melted?

I predict that you will not find this suggestion satisfactory, but I will state firmly that it is in my opinion vastly the superior method.

I have long speculated on the notion of melting either the north ice cap or the south ice caps with an energy source. It is rather obvious that there is plenty of sunlight hitting the Northern ice cap to melt it. It is just that rather than it penetrating under the ice, the energy of sunlight mostly reflects off of the ice. Beyond that whatever is absorbed into ice or dirty ice while heating the ice a bit does not heat it to melting, and that heat then even dissipates to the sky, or evaporates ice in the summer.

I have mentioned solar powered Antarctic Lakes over and over on this site, as an obvious adaptation that should be worked into more practical scheme. It does have a flaw. It would be very unpleasant to start up such a thing. The North polar ice cap being extremely hostile.

However, create an almost instant lake, and then you have quite a lot going for you as far as year long life support, even during winters and dust storms.

Here are some reference materials on the notion:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … Antarctica

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 … 003-0582-0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Bonney_(Antarctica)
Quote:

Scientists have discovered an ancient ecosystem beneath the Taylor Glacier, next to Lake Bonney. This ecosystem survives by transforming sulfur and iron compounds for growth.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vanda
Quote:

There are three distinct layers of water ranging in temperature from 23 °C (73 °F) on the bottom to the middle layer of 7 °C (45 °F) and the upper layer ranges from 4–6 °C (39–43 °F).[5] It is only one of the many saline lakes in the ice-free valleys of the Transantarctic Mountains. The longest river of Antarctica, Onyx River, flows West, inland, into Lake Vanda. There is a meteorological station at the mouth of the river.

You may look up more, but what can be seen from the example, is that these lakes can store energy, pressurize a surface with hydrostatic pressure, support life, both chemically and with photosynthesis through the ice.

The method of heating the lakes is two part.
1) In the summer for perhaps 2 weeks, ice water is created from warmer temperatures and direct and continuous sunlight.
The fresh water gets under the ice and mixes with salt water under the ice, but warms up the salt water mix. (Not above 0 DegC).

But the layers below which can reach 23 °C (73 °F), how does that happen? Well attenuated as much as it is, sunlight gets through the thick ice, and through the layers of water deep enough to heat the lower layers. These lakes are like natural solar salt ponds.

Solar Salt Ponds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond

If the Martian Polar ice cap were pure fresh water, then the best we might hope for from an impactor would be a large lake where the bottom water would be as high as 39 DegF, and the top water just under the ice would be at 32 DegF.

But if there is salt, then we have chances of storing quite a lot of the heat.

The nature of the impact will matter. If it penetrates the ice into the rock, then indeed the rocks should be make quite hot, and you should see persisting hot springs on the bottom of the lakes. Technically geothermal energy / Impactor Energy.

There is some reason to believe that salt is at the bottom of the ice caps, and even salty lakes. However we do believe also that there was an Ocean at the location of the Northern ice cap. We likely have high possibilities of stirring up massive amounts of salt in a Ice-rock penetrating event.

Further, we have real possibilities of chemical reactions both from the rock impacted and crushed, and the impactor also crushed.
http://oilonmars.blogspot.com/
Quote:

2. Serpentinization
Serpentinization is the process whereby water reacts with rocks in the upper mantle (peridotite) to form serpentinite. The water reacts strongly with the olivine (magnesium silicate) in the peridotite, and causes additional warming (exothermal heat), volume expansion (because of the added water to the new rock (serpentinite), and to the release of excess free hydrogen (H2).
Take a look at the results of serpentinization in the deep ocean:
"Lost City" serpentinization in action...

Look at the above, look some more, and look and look. Do you see it?
You would be making a giant pot of steaming chemical soup, that could support a biosphere for a long time without sunlight. But we can use the sunlight above the lake anyway, to really ramp up things.

Your impactor is not only creating a lake that might persist for 1000-10,000 years, but the chemical reactions will release both more heat, and Hydrogen. And the atmosphere of Mars is dominantly CO2.

In nature microbes can grow just fine eating Hydrogen and CO2, so a plankton. And they produce Methane, which could be released to the atmosphere to warm the atmosphere, perhaps doubling the mean air pressure of Mars to 11 mb. That is enough pressure to allow for snow melts and temporary melt water streams over much of the planet.

But engineered organisms might do more.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 191102.htm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … -from-co2/

And you should understand that the microbes could provide food.

I have to go now, I would like to hear what you have to say on this. I know I am completely correct. Usually I am not sure, but this time I won't be very impressed by a negative response.

Done

Last edited by Void (2018-07-28 18:01:21)

louis · 2018-07-28 18:13:57

To my way of thinking this proposal appears to be mixing up different stages of development and proposing non-existent links in development.

I don't think the analogy with transcontinental railroads is that close. Probably Antarctic bases, military bases, university campuses and airports provide more clues about the nature of Mars development. What you might call "surface commerce" will eventually follow, but it's unlikely to be a key driver of development. Think about population levels - to get 10,000 people living on Mars would be a tremendous achievement but in terms of a local commercial economy (shops, cafes, restaurants and the like) that economy would be tiny...no bigger, in fact smaller than an equivalent small settlement of 10,000 people. No - the really big elements in the Mars economy at that stage will be investment flowing in from universities, space agencies, sponsorship, sale of TV rights and image rights etc.

I think comet dropping is unlikely to be feasible any time soon - certainly not by 2036. We don't know enough about the planet yet even to agree on a responsible target location. Any location on Mars might contain vital fossil information or even current life forms. It would be unethical to simply blast a huge hole in the planet.

In the short to medium term I think we will be able to create v. pleasant para-Earth environments by covering over natural or excavated gorges and filling them with Earth flora and fauna, together with flowing streams. Longer term we can achieve terraformation by a variety of methods.

Void · 2018-07-29 21:19:16

Louis,

To say I was extremely unhappy about your post here is a vast understatement.

It really strikes me a vandalism if it is anything.

I am quite serious that as a treatment in the line of thinking of the originators of this tread, it as an appropriate response, with great potential.

It does not matter if "WE" are ready to do comet dropping at this time. It does not matter that "WE" might decide that it is not the correct target for the purpose of protecting supposed life.

It is a technique. It should be discussed on that basis.

Moral principals apply equally to landing 6 BFR's or making a lake on the North Polar ice cap. Just because you have a particular notion of what planet to go to and how to go there, does not give you moral rights to interfere with technical discussions of alternatives.

Just more than a little not happy with this Louis.

Did you notice how I will say it in such a way that the management will not have an excuse to ban me?

Quote:

To my way of thinking this proposal appears to be mixing up different stages of development and proposing non-existent links in development.
I don't think the analogy with transcontinental railroads is that close. Probably Antarctic bases, military bases, university campuses and airports provide more clues about the nature of Mars development. What you might call "surface commerce" will eventually follow, but it's unlikely to be a key driver of development. Think about population levels - to get 10,000 people living on Mars would be a tremendous achievement but in terms of a local commercial economy (shops, cafes, restaurants and the like) that economy would be tiny...no bigger, in fact smaller than an equivalent small settlement of 10,000 people. No - the really big elements in the Mars economy at that stage will be investment flowing in from universities, space agencies, sponsorship, sale of TV rights and image rights etc.
I think comet dropping is unlikely to be feasible any time soon - certainly not by 2036. We don't know enough about the planet yet even to agree on a responsible target location. Any location on Mars might contain vital fossil information or even current life forms. It would be unethical to simply blast a huge hole in the planet.
In the short to medium term I think we will be able to create v. pleasant para-Earth environments by covering over natural or excavated gorges and filling them with Earth flora and fauna, together with flowing streams. Longer term we can achieve terraformation by a variety of methods.

louis · 2018-07-30 05:06:12

Well I've never doubted it as a potential technique. But I think by the time we have the techology to make it a reality there will be too many human settlements on Mars, dotted all over the planet, to risk it.

Void wrote:

Louis,
To say I was extremely unhappy about your post here is a vast understatement.
It really strikes me a vandalism if it is anything.
I am quite serious that as a treatment in the line of thinking of the originators of this tread, it as an appropriate response, with great potential.
It does not matter if "WE" are ready to do comet dropping at this time. It does not matter that "WE" might decide that it is not the correct target for the purpose of protecting supposed life.
It is a technique. It should be discussed on that basis.

Moral principals apply equally to landing 6 BFR's or making a lake on the North Polar ice cap. Just because you have a particular notion of what planet to go to and how to go there, does not give you moral rights to interfere with technical discussions of alternatives.
Just more than a little not happy with this Louis.
Did you notice how I will say it in such a way that the management will not have an excuse to ban me?

Quote:
To my way of thinking this proposal appears to be mixing up different stages of development and proposing non-existent links in development.
I don't think the analogy with transcontinental railroads is that close. Probably Antarctic bases, military bases, university campuses and airports provide more clues about the nature of Mars development. What you might call "surface commerce" will eventually follow, but it's unlikely to be a key driver of development. Think about population levels - to get 10,000 people living on Mars would be a tremendous achievement but in terms of a local commercial economy (shops, cafes, restaurants and the like) that economy would be tiny...no bigger, in fact smaller than an equivalent small settlement of 10,000 people. No - the really big elements in the Mars economy at that stage will be investment flowing in from universities, space agencies, sponsorship, sale of TV rights and image rights etc.
I think comet dropping is unlikely to be feasible any time soon - certainly not by 2036. We don't know enough about the planet yet even to agree on a responsible target location. Any location on Mars might contain vital fossil information or even current life forms. It would be unethical to simply blast a huge hole in the planet.
In the short to medium term I think we will be able to create v. pleasant para-Earth environments by covering over natural or excavated gorges and filling them with Earth flora and fauna, together with flowing streams. Longer term we can achieve terraformation by a variety of methods.

Void · 2018-07-30 11:17:12

That is called an opinion Louis.

What do you think about this?
https://www.space.com/41318-we-cant-terraform-mars.html

SpaceNut · 2018-07-30 17:11:45

The atmosphere was only looked at for its reserves of CO2 that is locked up in the poles and not to anything else it would seem.
The energy to not only create the new levels of atmosphere and to heat it was not suggested.
The level of pressure one would feel from this new hopefully breathable atmosphere.
No suggestion was made of the new UV or radiation levels that one would see from this newly create world surface.

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2018-10-05 11:50:52

Void wrote:

1) Even if you can create Ozone in the "Hole", I wonder how it remains there against the wind. I also wonder how it remains stable, in the presence of the rock of the crater walls, and in the presence of CO and CO2 it may very well react with chemically. Without Ozone, you would not have any reasonable hope of an external biosphere of significant value to the purpose of terraforming.
2) The heat will keep ice melted or evaporated. That is a problem. Moisture tends to move from a source of heat and condense at cold spots. How do you keep the moisture from migrating to the polar ice caps? Won't you end up with a dry crater bottom? Yes, if you continue to melt ice and have a canal refill the lake fine. But I am not sure how much help the crater is then.
3) Day night and seasonal temperature flux. How much atmosphere would you need to avoid nightly freezes outside of the lake? Again, very much against the survival of significant plant cover.
4) What are you going to do about dust storms?

re your Qs:

1. Ozone is slightly heavier-than-air on Mars, and hydraulic jump should slow wind in the crater, so that ozone is not lost quickly. Soontiens et al. 2013.

jas-d-12-0221.1-f2.gif

You'd just replenish at the loss rate, notionally with O2 manufacturing. Or conceivably certain plants could perform that task; e.g. lichens, which can protect themselves against martian UV with screening pigments. Brandt et al. 2015.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQyP1tHs6Vj-LEK4w2nRbyrxsx4Sc4i6lijkB4HE8unYlVEE4t1

2. At most locations on the crater floor the impact debris and ice cover would limit evaporation and sublimation to < 1 cm per sol, and groundwater flow would at least partially replenish. Detailed modeling of the post-impact water cycle will require a proper geological survey of the pre-impact site, but for some initial numbers, see this geophysical note.

3. Nightly freeze is expected; very severe in winter. Ice cover provides a measure of insulation, and ground heat can be distributed with hydrothermal irrigation channels, but you wouldn't expect all plants to survive the winter. Some plants would be summer ornamentals, only, with annual reseeding. Hence our term, "photosynthetic archipelago", indicating incomplete / discontinuous plant cover.

4. The crewed facilities, as sketched, are subaqueous. Therefore greenhouse plants would be protected against dust storms. Storm effect on surface plants is tbd.

hab_rough_geometry_1280.png?zoom=1.125&fit=1280%2C598

Refs.

Brandt, A., de Vera, J. P., Onofri, S., & Ott, S. (2015). Viability of the lichen Xanthoria elegans and its symbionts after 18 months of space exposure and simulated Mars conditions on the ISS. International Journal of Astrobiology, 14(3), 411-425.

Soontiens, N., Stastna, M., & Waite, M. L. (2013). Numerical simulations of waves over large crater topography in the atmosphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 70(4), 1216-1232.

Last edited by Lake Matthew Team - Cole (2018-10-06 07:52:48)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-04-23 23:18:27

"Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#2 2018-04-25 19:27:57

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#3 2018-07-27 15:17:50

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#4 2018-07-28 16:36:20

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#5 2018-07-28 18:13:57

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#6 2018-07-29 21:19:16

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#7 2018-07-30 05:06:12

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#8 2018-07-30 11:17:12

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#9 2018-07-30 17:11:45

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

#10 2018-10-05 11:50:52

Re: "Developing Mars": a room.eu.com Special Report, Spring 2018

Board footer