Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

Void · 2018-07-30 11:25:48

https://www.space.com/41318-we-cant-terraform-mars.html
Quote:

Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon, Study Suggests

On Mars, CO2 is present in rocks and the polar ice caps. Jakosky and Edwards used data from the various rovers and spacecraft observing and studying Mars from the past 20 years to essentially take an inventory of the planet's stored CO2.
They documented all of Mars' surface and subsurface CO2 reservoirs and how much of the gas exists and could be put into the planet's atmosphere to change it. However, while there is significant CO2 on Mars, there is only enough accessible CO2 to triple Mars' atmospheric pressure, Jakosky and Edwards found. To successfully terraform Mars, the atmosphere would need to be raised enough so that humans could walk around without spacesuits. But although tripling the Red Planet's atmospheric pressure might sound like a lot, it's only one-fiftieth of the CO2 necessary to make the atmosphere habitable to Earth creatures.

For my tastes this article is too negative, but strangely enough being able to triple the atmospheric pressure of Mars sounds like wonderful to me.

Could we make Mars another Earth anytime soon? I don't think so. However we could upgrade its potential to assist human presence there.

I would be happy to double the atmospheric pressure but to triple it! Then truly I expect that we could have snowfalls, and temporary streams.

The Onyx River Antarctica.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onyx_River
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vanda
Quote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lake Vanda
Location
Wright Valley
Victoria Land
Antarctica
Coordinates
77°31′47″S 161°34′32″E
Coordinates: 77°31′47″S 161°34′32″E
Lake type
Hypersaline lake
Primary inflows
Onyx River
Bartley Stream
Clark Stream
Meserve Stream
Primary outflows
none
Basin countries
(Antarctica)
Max. length
8 km (5.0 mi)
Max. width
2 km (1.2 mi)
Surface area
5.2 km2 (2.0 sq mi)
Average depth
30.8 m (101 ft)
Max. depth
75 m (246 ft)
Water volume
160 million cubic metres (130,000 acre⋅ft)
Surface elevation
143 metres (469 ft)[1]
Settlements
Vanda Station
Lake Vanda Hut
Lake Vanda is a lake in Wright Valley, Victoria Land, Ross Dependency, Antarctica. The lake is 5 km long and has a maximum depth of 69 m.[2] On its shore, New Zealand maintained Vanda Station from 1968 to 1995. Lake Vanda is a hypersaline lake with a salinity more than ten times that of seawater,[3] more than the salinity of the Dead Sea, and perhaps even more than of Lake Assal (Djibouti), which is the world's most saline lake outside of Antarctica. Lake Vanda is also meromictic, which means that the deeper waters of the lake don't mix with the shallower waters.[4] 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.

Ice-covered Lake Vanda with Onyx River in the right foreground
The lake is covered by a transparent ice sheet 3.5–4 metres (11–13 ft) year-round, though melting in late December forms a moat out to approximately 50 metres (160 ft) from the shore. The surface of the ice is not covered with snow and is "deeply rutted with cracks and melt lines".[5] During the colder months the moat refreezes.
While no species of fish live in Lake Vanda or the Onyx River, microscopic life such as cyanobacteria algal blooms have been recorded. Due to the concerns over impact to the natural environment that may occur during research, scientific diving operations are limited to work in the upper layer (above 30 metres (98 ft)) and remotely operated underwater vehicle use is not allowed.[5]

So to me this far exceeds what it presented in that article above.

No, you cannot breath water, but you would not be able to breath 1000 mb of CO2 either. In both cases you may not require a pressure suit.

……

The whole Mars inhabiting/terraforming concept has been a roach motel for human and especially American space efforts.
The planet is definitely marginal, and has some very bad habits like serious dust storms.
Still it is plausible that there could be life on Mars, so any effort to access Mars can come against hostile political forces who may or may not really be concerned about protecting such alien life, but in some cases will be spoilers, intent on making the American and Western space program be wasted in futility.

The pattern seems to be to point the intent to Mars, but then to forbid doing it, and yet use the money to search for Mars organisms. A search which could last for centuries.

I do believe that this was done with intent to cripple human access to space, and American in particular. We were told that the Moon was bone dry, and for that reason we should aim at Mars, which could supposedly be terraformed to be a second Earth.

……

Reality is that even if we could turn it into a tiny second Earth, we still have no idea how a population of say 1,000,000 people would do health wise in a .38 g gravity field for a whole life time.

To be fair, we don't even know for sure that humans could live healthy in a 1 g synthetic (Spin), gravity field. But I have much better chances of being correct for the 1 g synthetic gravity field than for the .38 g Martian field.

……

Anyway for several reasons then I do support efforts to build habitat off world and not on a planet or moon.
But I also support further investigations on what could be done with Mars, in the next 100 years, and in the next 1,000 - 10,000 years.

In the next 100 years, I would expect the potential of a atmospheric pressure of about 16.5 mb. However for low locations such as Hellas, I would guestimate that could be triple. Say approaching 50 mb.

Probably a significant portion of the surface would be able to support temporary melt water streams, which would fill ice covered lakes.

The ice covered lakes would be natural locations to place a settlement.

……

What is the best way to get there?

Well, I support the investigation into using impactors to melt the polar ice caps, creating seas that could persist for quite some time.

I think that such would support a chemically driven biosphere within those waters, where the action of water on the crushed rocks of the impact will release Hydrogen. CO2 being pumped into the lake waters would then provide what is needed to bootstrap a microbial biosphere who's output could be both food for people, and Methane to the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. So, I am more optimistic than that article. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas which would be available on Mars.

……

But I want to be up front. I now think that Venus the Earth, and Mars, may each support an orbital community of humans in synthetic gravity machines, and that for Venus and Mars, the bulk of the people will end up living in those, and a minority will live on the surface of Mars or the clouds of Venus. I am rather like Jeff Bezos in that thinking, but I am like Elon Musk in that I still have uses for Mars.

……

I realize that for this site such beliefs are like Heresy. It troubles me that that could be true. How could such an outfit like this be run like an Orthodox religion? Very strange. Not very science or technological. Political though and as I have said, I have more then a pinch of suspicion that this was created to entrap the human space efforts.

But, if you need to excommunicate me by all means. That should be entertaining.

Done

Last edited by Void (2018-07-30 14:54:46)

Terraformer · 2018-07-30 12:20:22

Finding a phase diagram for water that's actually useful is difficult, but it seems water boils at ~16 deg. c. at 20mb pressure. Enough for cold streams from glacial melt, and of course dissolved salts should increase the boiling point. Then there's the possibility for capping it with plastic film to recapture the water vapour. 20mb might be enough to grow a lot of food in unpressurised greenhouse aquaculture.

Plus, a tripling of the atmosphere means tripling the amount of radiation shielding from the atmosphere. Adding in other outgassing, maybe it will help with UV levels?

Void · 2018-07-30 15:02:35

There are sources of Oxygen, from water or from Perchlorates, or from the soil itself.

An atmosphere 3 times as heavy would be able to contain more water vapor, and the UV would over time, release Oxygen from it.

I am nervous about Ozone mixed with CO2 and CO. I think they would react, destroying the Ozone.

One possible trick which would have to come much later in time would be to capture the Carbon in the atmosphere, put it in those lakes, and let organisms, convert it to CO2 and biomass. Of course to extract the Carbon in the first place you must use energy to split the molecules, release the O2 to the atmosphere, and put the Carbon or CO into the lake. (Repeat, Repeat, Repeat...….)

However the Carbon being ~1/3 of the mass of the atmosphere, you would have decreased the atmospheric pressure by about that amount. But if you released equivalent Oxygen, then you would have an Oxygen dominant atmosphere, which you could breath (If pressurized), and you may very well have an Ozone layer, and so Cyanobacteria and Lichens could grow where it snows and melts. So then a Photo-biosphere on the surface, but a very harsh one that does not deliver all that much for human life support. It would be more of a mind game, just having something green on the surface could be important to the inhabitants.

However, first the vaporization of the existing CO2 if possible, and then over a stretch of time (Probably Centuries), a thin Oxygen atmosphere. If you want to invoke futuristic nano-machines, to make an atmosphere, then fine, but I don't think I can hold my breath that long. And we might end up as "Grey Goo" instead.

And as for the .38 g effects on long term human health? Maybe space medicine will eventually be able to tweak these things allowing normalcy in a .38 g field, but I don't think we have that yet. If we did, we would not have to be concerned about microgravity disease.

But if a bunch of people want to go to Mars and be lab rats, I won't try to stop them.

However, since Mars has proven to have much less potential than we were lead to believe, and the Moon apparently has much greater potential than it was supposed to, I will make no secret that I am more in favor of the Jeff Bezos and Sir Branson ideas, than the Mars ideas. But I will be seriously happy if SpaceX pulls off a successful mission and puts a settlement on Mars.

Thanks for stopping by with your ideas Terraformer.
Done

Last edited by Void (2018-07-30 15:11:35)

louis · 2018-07-30 16:53:44

If the Earth's atmosphere weighs around 5,500 trillion tonnes, that would be about 1200 trillion tonnes of oxygen I guess. I don't how you equate that to an equivalent Mars atmosphere, but going by land area maybe you need to divide that by 4 to get an equivalent for an Earth-like atmosphere on Mars.

So perhaps we need ideally 300 trillion tonnes, but could probably get away with something far less - say 150 trillion tonnes, the equivalent of living up a v. high mountain.

So if you had a 200 year programme that would mean you would need to produce 750 billion tonnes of oxygen per annum.

By way of comparison, 7 billion humans on Earth produce about 40 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. That's as a by-product of course - we aren't aiming to produce CO2 directly.

So it's a very tall order but perhaps it is within the realms of possibility once orbital solar power and other technologies are in place.

We have over one billion private vehicles on Earth already. One tenth of that, 100 million car-sized vehicles roaming the planet might each be able to produce 7500 tonnes per (earth) annum of oxygen - that's only about 20 tonnes per day. You might have to process something like 80 tonnes of iron oxide.

Last edited by louis (2018-07-30 18:35:43)

SpaceNut · 2018-07-30 18:15:05

The atmosphere of Earth is composed of nitrogen (about 78%), oxygen (about 21%), argon (about 0.9%) with carbon dioxide and other gases in trace amounts.

Mars 0.376 g

So mars atmosphere to be proportional for percentage would reduce the 2,068 trillion tonnes for mars. 1613 for nitrogen, 4334 for oxygen, 18 for argon....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … rature.svg

Mars current levels
carbon dioxide (95.3 percent compared to less than 1 percent on Earth).
nitrogen (2.7 percent compared to 78 percent on Earth).
oxygen (0.13 percent compared to 21 percent on Earth).

The red planet's atmosphere is only 0.03 percent water vapor, compared to Earth, where it makes up around 1 percent.
On average, it exerts only 6.1 millibars of surface pressure (Earth's average sea-level atmospheric pressure is 1,013.25 millibars).

Clouds of water ice hover at altitudes of 12 to 18 miles (20 to 30 kilometers), and clouds of carbon dioxide form at approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers).

The edge of space for earth is around 62 miles up but the actual measurements are much less.
The "effective volume" of the Earth's atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. This figure is the surface area of the Earth (509 million square kilometers) times the "effective thickness" of the atmosphere (8.2 kilometers, or about 27,000 ft).

Since gravity is the factors for mars we will scale down as well would be 1.83 billion cubic kilometers.

Mars' total surface area is equal to 144,798,500 km² (55,907,000 square miles).

The atmospheric height would end up being 12.71 km above the planets surface.

Void · 2018-07-30 20:46:06

Well Louis and Spacenut I have been sort of tooth and claw about this stuff. I will try to walk on two paws for a bit, try to be constructive.

I am pleased with the article saying that a tripled atmosphere is possible. That one could support a biosphere both in ice covered bodies of water, and even in the soil, but I suspect with limited capabilities for exposed surface. So, it is a start.

I am also one of those who do not think that all of the Martian atmosphere floated off into space. I think a significant portion went underground, but deep, so getting at it will be a trial. I in fact am hopeful that Nitrogen containing clathrates will exist underground. Maybe Methane containing clathrates as well. My reasons are those of watching Antarctica.

Before Mars became as it is now, it would have had a last "Dry Valley" phase, where ice covered bodies of water were the last domain where significant life could have existed.

Some of the dry valley lakes in Antarctica have anoxic bottom waters. In fact it is typical that they are hypersaline anoxic, and warmer than the less salty colder layers above them. But they can have a life cycle. Somehow it appears that in these waters Nitrous Oxide and Hydrogen are generated.

I just have a feeling that as these last bodies of water became more and more marginal for life, and froze top to bottom they may have accumulated clathrates under ice and soil pressure, at cold temperatures.

But I think that it would likely be centuries to get them mobile again, if they do exist.

That's my happy Mars face

If not then we will need to assess Mars for what it is. Not a particularly inviting place, but one we can upgrade with limits. In that case I more wish to create synthetic gravitation habitats in orbit from it's raw materials.

1 g, 1 bar, warm, alive, in orbit. And on the surface ice covered lakes as the most living and livable asset.

In that case I want to go to the Moon, build a giant hammer and beat Mars into compliance with human needs.

Unless perhaps they actually find native life. I can be reasonable on that. That then would be another case for the Moon's priority.

Terraformer · 2018-07-31 02:26:29

louis,

You need about 2.5x as much atmosphere above you on Mars to provide the same pressure as on Earth, due to the lower gravity.

All,

The easiest way to find out how viable terraforming is is probably a big mirror in orbit. Concentrate sunlight on areas of interest and see what comes out, and how strongly it is bound. The Martian regolith appears to be superoxidised, so if we can get Mars to the point where water is flowing, that could release a lot of oxygen into the atmosphere. Enough for an ozone layer?

I want a Mars that's warm and pressurised enough for liquid water, with a surface that's better protected from radiation, particularly UV radiation. Maybe with some genetically engineered plants on the surface. If we had a planet like that, then we could use plastic to create large greenhouse lakes for aquaculture, providing us with oxygen and food. No need to worry about pressurising them, so we could use existing canyons and craters.

I would consider a 50mmb CO2 Mars atmosphere with an ozone layer, and a surface with genetically engineered taiga in the equatorial region and tundra to the north and south (hopefully putting large amounts of methane into the air), to be a wonderful outcome. A 20mb atmosphere with some ozone that allows a bit of liquid water, with greenhouse aquaculture, would be a very good one.

Spaniard · 2018-07-31 03:10:32

Terraformer wrote:

louis,
You need about 2.5x as much atmosphere above you on Mars to provide the same pressure as on Earth, due to the lower gravity.

I think that it's 3, just like gravity.
But per surface unit.

As Earth has 3,5 more surface, I think that we need like 0,85 Earth atmosphere mass to fill Mars up to 1 atmosphere pressure on Mars.

louis · 2018-07-31 05:28:08

Thanks, I'd neglected that, though the smaller land surface is still relevant in terms of less atmosphere being produced.

Well I was really just trying to get a handle on the figure really. We haven't discussed what other gases in your Mars atmosphere you might have and how the gases might be layered to some extent.

We can probably do better with greenhouse gases on Mars than on Earth, with some human intervention.

Another factor is that Mars doesn't have any oceans to begin with, so the areas which are thousands of metres below the average level of the surface will be corespondingly dense, unlike on Earth where sea level is effectively (with a few minor exceptions) the maximum level of pressure. We also haven't discussed the extent to which simple breathing apparatus - atmospheric concentrators I guess - might enable humans to survive on the surface without oxygen tanks even if the pressure were say 30% of that on Earth,and you would be able to wear a simple jump suit rather than an anti-vacuum suit.

I like what you say about using agriculture to create oxygen. That is probably one of the most efficient ways of doing that. I read on the internet that one acre of trees produces enough oxygen annually for 18 people's personal oxygen requirement over a year. And there's no shortage of CO2 for the trees to "breathe".

Even if we cannot immediately terraform Mars we can certainly create very large interconnected gorge spaces - maybe extending over hundreds of miles with Earth-style flora and fauna, flowing water and Earth-analogue air.

Terraformer wrote:

louis,
You need about 2.5x as much atmosphere above you on Mars to provide the same pressure as on Earth, due to the lower gravity.

All,
The easiest way to find out how viable terraforming is is probably a big mirror in orbit. Concentrate sunlight on areas of interest and see what comes out, and how strongly it is bound. The Martian regolith appears to be superoxidised, so if we can get Mars to the point where water is flowing, that could release a lot of oxygen into the atmosphere. Enough for an ozone layer?
I want a Mars that's warm and pressurised enough for liquid water, with a surface that's better protected from radiation, particularly UV radiation. Maybe with some genetically engineered plants on the surface. If we had a planet like that, then we could use plastic to create large greenhouse lakes for aquaculture, providing us with oxygen and food. No need to worry about pressurising them, so we could use existing canyons and craters.
I would consider a 50mmb CO2 Mars atmosphere with an ozone layer, and a surface with genetically engineered taiga in the equatorial region and tundra to the north and south (hopefully putting large amounts of methane into the air), to be a wonderful outcome. A 20mb atmosphere with some ozone that allows a bit of liquid water, with greenhouse aquaculture, would be a very good one.

Void · 2018-07-31 11:04:02

I started with a negative article, and now revert to a more positive article:
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magn … phere.html

I am not sure how much I trust any of the articles. At most, they are estimates.

……

I am thinking about posting in the policy section, but since this is here, I will first develop a form of the post I want to make.

……

There is a fair amount of flack that a person might receive for not being a "Mars Purist". It is almost like rebelling against a religion.
I can't say I like it.

Anyway, I am thinking I will demonstrate that I am indeed a Mars advocate, but that I have no desire to limit myself to Mars alone, and certainly not to the Mars surface only pathology.

I have settled for the likelihood that Mars will only be a partial terraform, but that that action may be worth it.

I am OK if SpaceX sends BFS x 6 to Mars, but I hope they don't deal with a setback.

The tools I am most interested in at this time are;
1) Orbital shelters with synthetic gravity, and radiation protection both mass and magnetics.
2) Electric propulsions of many kind for interplanetary space flight in conjunction with the use of slingshot events involving the Moon and the Earth, and "Ballistic Capture Method".
3) Telepresence and Robotics. These will be most powerful in the Earth Moon system, especially at first, because the Earth has the most people who live in shirt sleeve situations where they could run the telepresence.
4) Skyhooks, mostly to mine atmospheric gasses to orbit, but also perhaps eventually to draw solid mass to orbit.
5) Space Nuclear, for shelters on Mars and for interplanetary craft when suitable, and other things.

There will likely be others.

With these tools and perhaps some others, then I anticipate the opening of Earth/Moon, Mars, and Venus. No reason to ignore Earth/Moon, and Venus, just because some people here have an obsession with the surface of Mars. The tools to get Mars, will be useful elsewhere. You would have to be crazy to not care to use them.

Beyond that I think that the tools would also be useful for Saturn/Titan/Enceladus/….moons...., Uranus/….moons...., Neptune/….moons....
But you may well need fusion power for that.

Beyond that the small outer bodies, beginning with Pluto/Charon/...moons... and other further out objects.

……

What I am looking for is a gravitational field in association with a magnetic field which will recapture most of the volatile gasses which might leak from orbital habitats.

The purpose of the skyhook would be to get the recaptured gasses back into the habitats.

In the case of Mars and Venus, it would be necessary to provide a functional magnetic field.

In the case of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and for the "Plutoids" probably fusion power is needed.

For Jupiter, I am guessing that a skyhook would be impractical. However it may have a useful magnetic field.

So, my intention is to provide for a solar civilization mostly of protecting the Earth, and providing orbital habitats.

For Venus, sucking it's atmosphere into orbital habitats could be the sensible way of terraforming that planet.

For Mars, indeed, limited terraforming, until magical terraforming, (Technology currently beyond our means), is available.

Mars could be a very useful planet as with a ~.38 g field, it is a logical place to get some resources from up to orbit. Venus of course a large supply of Nitrogen among the inner planets, and Oxygen, and Carbon, ect. Mercury and Luna, and NEO/NEA's potential sources to build space habs from.

So I am not happy if other members might try to frame me as a Luna guy. I am planetary promiscuous in a good way. A way that leads us to Mars, and much more.

I have use for SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, and others. Don't mind if anyone tries to do something, maybe even if it is wrong. At least do something.

And I really like the ideas of the "Gateway people" (Not to be confused or necessarily separated from the LOP-G).

So There!

Done

Last edited by Void (2018-07-31 11:33:21)

Belter · 2018-09-20 08:36:52

In reality, I think creating large Babylon 5 style stations out of NEAs and comets (depending on their orbits) have as much, if not more promise. For one thing, you don't have to terraform an entire planet to be able to go outside on the lawn. Just the internal space. For another, you're closer to the sweet spot of Earth orbit. For another, the asteroids can be digested and removed as being a threat to Earth. Finally, there's no energy required for take off and landing, yet you can have full gravity simulated.

I don't see Venus or Mars as impossible over hundreds or thousands of years of mass robot and biological engineering. Might as well, they are of no use to humanity otherwise, except as dots of light. The problem with Venus is that there is plenty of oxygen, but essentially no hydrogen except in the sulphuric acid. So the sulpher would have to be sequestered, and most of the CO2, which means finding a stable, but safe and useful large Carbon/oxygen molecule that remains a solid and stable at very high temperatures, so that the atmosphere can be depressurized and neutralized. The massive amounts of sulphuric acid in the air would still only yield an ocean about 1/5000th the mass of Earth's oceans if my very rough calculations are close. Even if you did that, you have a huge problem with days that can't be controlled, and the fact that probably only the area around the poles would be habitable after all that effort. I suppose that you could construct massive carbon shades that blocked the sun and reflected the heat away. And still no magnetosphere.

A space station could have full gravity and active magnetic shielding and a very low cost to build with replicating robots. And I don't think we'll see any attempt at terraforming anything in our lifetimes.

Last edited by Belter (2018-09-20 08:39:10)

Void · 2018-09-20 09:33:18

That is a nice contrast to most thinking here. But I like to work along side of any dreams that others are trying to make into a reality.

If SpaceX does indeed setup a part of my brain on the Moon, then I will happily help build a Moon base from the comfort of easy chair, while still intending to go to the gym as is appropriate. At this point I anticipate that would be a wild leap. Probably kids who's brains are adapted to video games would be better. However being a senior, I think that they would be wise to let grand dad tag along, to observe at least to give a perspective from a Baby Boomer.

So, honestly I am really wondering about using the BFS as a Earth passenger ship. Not using the BFR. I think that could lower costs, and risks. However I don't know what range it could have for passenger travel. Still it would be a good way to prove out the machine. At first it would be space tourists who just want to go to the edge of space, but as it became better proved, it would help to iron out some of the kinks in the BFS.

But don't get be wrong, I would expect adventurers to go the step further, and do a Lunar program. I see that as having two important parts.
1) Manufacture on the Moon primarily by telepresence. This would also involve prospecting.
2) However people going to the Moon and staying for a time to conduct various scientific investigations along with prospecting. But very importantly getting data for space medicine on how that environment will affect the human body. Low g, and I suppose other factors as well. And then of course since we already do animal experiments for our other medicines on Earth. Animal experiments. I don't expect these to be cruel, unless it is discovered that the Lunar environment is terribly hostile to Earth animals (The environment inside of habitats I do indicate).

So then we would quickly begin to get hints at how humans and animals respond to low g environments. This will help for the making of choices. We really don't know if synthetic gravity will be a adequate substitute for real gravity, but we more or less must punt on that one.
The urgency of it will start to be revealed.

I don't expect Mars enthusiasts to wait for all of that information, and I don't take responsibility for what may happen. I think the chances for very serious dire consequences for humans living in the Martian gravity well on the geosphere of Mars, are not too high. Probably worth the risk.

I think we should proceed to synthetic gravity machines as soon as possible in the Earth/Moon system, and to then deploy any positive methods discovered to elsewhere, where it can help.

Just this morning I have been thinking that SpaceX could deploy sections for a propellant depot by using one of their versions of BFS.
For my part, I think a propulsion method of choice. Maybe electric maybe chemical thrusters of a small size to keep things K.I.S.S.

These depots would allow BFS to operate better at the edges of the envelope. These tanks could be disposable or may have some reuses.

Would they have a heat shield and do aeroburns into the Martian and Venus orbitspheres? Maybe, Maybe not.

Cutting costs would be desired, but greater capability is seldom a thing to pass by, if you can afford it and are operating on the edges of your capability envelope.

……

What about fuel depots? On the surface of a planet? In orbit? So then of course we are not likely to have a propellants depot on the surface of Venus, but could have a floating one in the atmosphere of Venus. However that would be a hard place to deliver propellants to. Perhaps delivering to the orbitsphere of Venus is a better option. Aerocapture, Ballistic capture, or Ballistic Capture with Aerocapture. Yes we would want insitu propellant production in the gravity well of Venus (Or Mars), but flexibility is good. Baby does not eat solid food at the beginning but nurses. That notion seems to be a quite large part of how we get here in the first place. I would not turn it aside so easily. Men don't nurse typically, and so then get into the child's food chain later typically. But I think a female may be more inclined to understand this. We can throw babies into snow banks in hopes of evolving a super baby, but most likely the results would be a creature repulsive to us, and really more likely it would be revealed that we are very stupid.

……

Going to Mars, I see two moons in the Martian orbitsphere. So mass of some kind. No guarantee of water or CO2.

But at the very least this is a potential source of radiation protection in the orbitsphere of Mars.

So, I will make my pitch. I think that to the orbital depots should be delivered milk. That is the propulsive mass needed for a return to Earth. This will greatly reduce the amount of propellant that must be manufactured at first on the Martian surface, and make the first mission(s) more realistic and moral to proceed with. If you do not choose to land your BFS's with enough propellant to get to the Martian orbitsphere in a sufficient method, then at least you only need to do insitu to get to Martian orbit.

……

But you indicated synthetic gravity machines, presumably in the orbitspheres of planets and moons humans might be involved with.
I am inclined to think that Earth type materials processing will work best in synthetic gravity machines. We have been waiting to microgravity industry for a long time, but it is too weird for us I think. We don't intuitively understand it. I have not seen much benefit yet. Maybe it is coming, but I think synthetic gravity machines may be the place to try Earth type industrial processes.

So, should Methane and Oxygen be manufactured on the surface of Mars and in the atmosphere of Venus? Well, I think that we really want to treat these as sources of raw materials as much as is possible.

So, are the moons of Mars "digestible"? Not easily. Got to work into that. At first they are just radiation protection materials. Maybe bricks and stuff that can be attached to your whatever.

I do think that Methane and Oxygen are hard to produce on the Martian surface or the in the atmosphere of Venus, and hard to maintain in a depot. Why not bring up Dry Ice, and water ice from the Martian surface, as the next step from having the depots supplied from the Earth/Moon system? That's a step further off Milk, and starting to process other things.

For Venus, maybe it is Dry Ice, and Sulfuric Acid or water ice.

At least Dry Ice and water ice are relatively easy to handle (Perhaps), in the Martian orbitsphere. For Venus, well, we will see.

And the why? Well better solar energy in the orbitspheres, and also we presume synthetic gravity machines. We hope they are good places for humans to maintain good health. Time will tell.

So, then your solar cells must come from the Earth at first, then perhaps the surface of Mars, and then finally perhaps Phobos, Demos, or asteroids.

The quality of solar energy is much better in the orbitsphere of Mars and Venus than on the surface of Mars, or the atmosphere of Venus.

……

Good heaven! I think that's plenty. What is your reply(s)?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-09-20 10:24:46)

Belter · 2018-09-20 10:55:20

This is why I would first like to see a new 1G space station in orbit around the Earth, a second around the moon and then when we have perfected the ability to construct in space using robots as automated labor and small moons or asteroids as material, construct one in orbit around Mars. This provides a lot of potential back up and emergency relief in case of an emergency on planet. And proves the ability to manufacture or harvest fuels in space, before trying to land large ships on a planet with more than 2x the gravity of the moon. The ability to do long term storage, to have back ups for all contingencies. Imagine of a lander has an accident and crashes into part of a Mars habitat or damages critical infrastructure. It would be mayhem. What if the only fuel was enough to get up to orbit, but none to return home and no refuge already in orbit?

Also, as far as gravity, it may be something that is simply not up for negotiation or control. It is a primal force, how do we control it? Via what mechanism? It might be possible, but I don't think anyone has even theorized how we might do it. Certainly not with conventional materials, since gravity goes right through it. And can we force particles to attract more strongly? And if they didn't, might that not generate a black hole? So, I'm just thinking basic centrifugal force. Active magnetic shielding, however, that we can do.

Void · 2018-09-20 12:21:16

I am OK sort of with your view, but I most certainly do not want to obstruct what others may dream and do.

If mistakes are done, then we have laid the foundations to fall back positions in conversations like this.

louis · 2018-09-20 18:43:50

Imagine how slow exploration and colonisation of Earth would have been had our species been seeking "back-up" all the time. I think we can deal with the marginal risks of missions to Mars without the need for 1G space stations. No doubt such stations will be developed in due course but at the moment they would be a complete distraction.

There's just about everything one needs on Mars to live well. There is some limited risk in the very first stages of Mars colonisation from meteorite strikes or rocket catastrophes. But by mission 3 I think the Mars community itself can mend the damage or survive for another couple of years before the next cargo mission comes in. The secret is not to put all your eggs in one basket: don't have one giant agricultural facility, or one propellant production plant or one landing area or one nuclear reactor or one central hab for living. Many mansions makes for safety on Mars.

Belter wrote:

This is why I would first like to see a new 1G space station in orbit around the Earth, a second around the moon and then when we have perfected the ability to construct in space using robots as automated labor and small moons or asteroids as material, construct one in orbit around Mars. This provides a lot of potential back up and emergency relief in case of an emergency on planet. And proves the ability to manufacture or harvest fuels in space, before trying to land large ships on a planet with more than 2x the gravity of the moon. The ability to do long term storage, to have back ups for all contingencies. Imagine of a lander has an accident and crashes into part of a Mars habitat or damages critical infrastructure. It would be mayhem. What if the only fuel was enough to get up to orbit, but none to return home and no refuge already in orbit?
Also, as far as gravity, it may be something that is simply not up for negotiation or control. It is a primal force, how do we control it? Via what mechanism? It might be possible, but I don't think anyone has even theorized how we might do it. Certainly not with conventional materials, since gravity goes right through it. And can we force particles to attract more strongly? And if they didn't, might that not generate a black hole? So, I'm just thinking basic centrifugal force. Active magnetic shielding, however, that we can do.

Last edited by louis (2018-09-20 18:49:55)

Belter · 2018-09-21 09:24:43

My point is mainly that we are in no rush, to be honest. There is nothing on Mars we need. Landing people on Mars just to say we did it? Okay, I think that has some merit from a pure back slapping exercise. However, trying to create a permanent base when we can't even create a 1G station around Earth, when we haven't even created a permanent moonbase seems a bit silly. Space X needs to land its ships on the moon and then bring them back to Earth safely. We didn't just go land on the moon. We did it in baby steps. We sent four Apollos into space before landing one. Hail Marys are always fun when they succeed. But a touchdown is a touchdown. We don't need to make it a life and death event for marketing sake. Musk's time table is to aggressive, which is why it will continually slip. Besides, crashing a spacecraft with 40 people on it would destroy Space X and throw everything into chaos.

Void · 2018-09-21 11:53:12

I partially agree sort of. The concerns should be said, and addressed. I am going to the Alternate BFR section perhaps to humiliate myself once more

RobertDyck · 2018-09-21 17:41:27

Donald Trump said ordered men orbit the Moon in 2019, and boots on Mars in 2024. That's doable, and Donald needs to get it done to demonstrate he can get stuff done. I've said a major reason to go to Mars is to get away from the excessive overbearing regulations we have on Earth. That fits with the Donald's agenda. He said for every new regulation creates in the US during his tenure, two must be removed.

I agree with baby steps. Before SpaceX announced BFR, I posted on this forum a Moon plan. Based on Mars Direct and Apollo, using SpaceX hardware. A LM launches unmanned to Lunar orbit, then Dragon with crew to rendezvous with it. Both launched by Falcon Heavy with a new upper stage. The stage would refuel the LM so it's reusable. Parked in lunar orbit between missions. It's small, uses existing hardware, and demonstrates propellant transfer. That's one reason I want the LM, Dragon service module, and the new upper stage to use LCH4/LOX. It demonstrates technology for BFR. SLS block 2B would deliver a Mars Direct Hab to the Lunar surface to be a permanent base.

Belter · 2018-09-21 18:17:44

We desperately need to learn to grow food in space, recycle air and water in mass quantities, including at lower Gs. We need to learn how to manufacture in space, with robots, water and materials mining, 3D printing, not to mention emergency surgeries. The moon is perfectly suited for practicing this. Of course, I may be in the wrong forum for that, and it would be obviously awesome to pull this off. One thing they could and should do is land maybe 4 BFRs on Mars as they had planned, but launch at least one to ensure they can make it back off the planet as needed. Perhaps robotically unload it, then launch it into orbit. It could become a small space station and could be harvested for spare parts or supplies if needed.

RobertDyck · 2018-09-21 18:59:14

Mars has atmosphere; Mars orbit has twice the radiation of ISS, the surface is half that of ISS or 1/4 Mars orbit. Atmosphere also provides nitrogen and carbon (CO2). Mars has plenty of ice, while ice at lunar poles is questionable whether it's concentrated enough to harvest. Mars has white sand, THE resource for glass for greenhouse windows. Mars has dirt; it isn't soil because it doesn't have organics, but it does have clay and other hydrated, weathered and metamophosed minerals. The Moon has regolith, igneous minerals pulverize by billions of years of micrometeorites. Mars surface doesn't have micrometeorites, they burn up in atmosphere 30km above the surface.

Sure we can start on the Moon. Testing a Mars Hab by using as a Moon base makes a lot of sense. But surgery on Mars is the same as on a ship at sea because Mars has substantial gravity. Much of the research you describe isn't necessary on a planet with atmosphere and substantial gravity.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-09-21 19:01:14)

SpaceNut · 2018-09-21 19:11:18

Even as poorly as some of the iss designed system efficiencies are we still have all the data to be able to drop a research facility of simular size to support a crew of 6. With the only research not well done is total support for all life items as we still are sending up quite a bit of cargo every few months with the crew changes.

It has been suggested to do a closed loop study to see where we fall for how long it can sustain with current conditions Will it be another biosphere fail or is it a bit better as we have isolated some of the laters problems and swapped them for others.

Its not a Mars will wait question as to when since we did do the moon in less than a decade and have now been saying mars or bust every decade since.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-07-30 11:25:48

Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#2 2018-07-30 12:20:22

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#3 2018-07-30 15:02:35

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#4 2018-07-30 16:53:44

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#5 2018-07-30 18:15:05

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#6 2018-07-30 20:46:06

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#7 2018-07-31 02:26:29

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#8 2018-07-31 03:10:32

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#9 2018-07-31 05:28:08

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#10 2018-07-31 11:04:02

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#11 2018-09-20 08:36:52

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#12 2018-09-20 09:33:18

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#13 2018-09-20 10:55:20

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#14 2018-09-20 12:21:16

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#15 2018-09-20 18:43:50

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#16 2018-09-21 09:24:43

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#17 2018-09-21 11:53:12

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#18 2018-09-21 17:41:27

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#19 2018-09-21 18:17:44

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#20 2018-09-21 18:59:14

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

#21 2018-09-21 19:11:18

Re: Can We Terraform Mars to Make It Earth-Like? Not Anytime Soon. ???????

Board footer