Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

tricky1992000 · 2004-06-09 19:04:26

Paraterraforming is just other way to keep and regulate atmosphere. There are designs with equal value for Mercury without the necessity of roofing the world. Matter of money and aesthetics.
There is big difference between building flimsy parasols and soletas and huge, robust, massive rotating structures. The first thing is far easier. They are easier maintainable and replaceble.

Paraterraforming is just other way to keep and regulate atmosphere. There are designs with equal value for Mercury without the necessity of roofing the world. Matter of money and aesthetics.

I don't think you have thought about this well enough, paraterraforming offers a pay as you go abilty.

With the advent of nano-tech, the materials will be available at an even cheaper rate, nano-carbon tubles is one such material.

Paraterraforming also offers earth type atmospheric presures, and a more efficent use of rare gases such as nitrogen.

and in fact the leaf provides inspiration for the perfect way to roof a near sun planet.

just imagine nano-bots growing that roof, getting its resources from a vien like structure.

MarsDog · 2004-06-14 12:42:09

Paraterraforming; similarly, we are made up of numerous cells, which occupy space in a flexible and efficient way.

karov · 2004-06-14 18:04:20

I agree about the paraterraforming. Biulding of planet-wide house in a plant-like method is very attractive. Even divided in cells as mentined, the uninterrupted sight distance could be really huge. In his wrightings Paul Birch proposes standartized such pannel, very usefull for paraterraforming. Hexagonal prisms - gasbags with kilometric size, pressurized under the necessary level. We could biuld atmospheric walls with them if we want to construct non-roofed open environments over just a part of certain planets curface. Or to keep the air from escaping through the open side of growing tube world. Simply incrementally move the bag-walls paralelly with the terraformation. Or use the gassbags as aerostats (floating cities components) in Venusian atmosphere colonization -- final or as stage of terraformation...

In fact there are lots of methods to keep an atmosphere on near sun world without roof if you are rich enough with rare gasses.

Mentioning ballons for cooloing and nanotechnology in this thread it occured to me that the baloons could be little. Nanosized. Or cantimeters in diameter. To float in the upper atmosphere and to increase the planets albedo almost to full reflectivity. To form huge techno-"biosphere" there, utilising part of the solar energy (for instance, producing fuel -H2 and landing to pump it in the supply grid parts of the nano-sphere). Constantly replenished losses by on ground mass re-production. Such effect could be achieved with even totally non-nano tech -- thick clouds of huge baloons, wide pipes, big baloon "organs". Integrated with the DNA/protein biosphere. Possessing electromagnetic effectors in order to return the escaping atmosphere. Working as global difraction device and evenly distributing the kept amount of light on the surface.Or unevenly for precise climate control. In pulsating manner , changing their optical proiperties, in order to emulate diurnal cycle. Or serving as global holographic screen projecting earth sky, with earth sun bellow.
----------------------------
Generally, remember the "nano-swarms" and the "Utility Fog". Combine with the dusty plasmas. Imagine that the dust particles are smart -- here you are plausible means to manage completely the electromagnetical environment of certain body... and to hold atmospheres without roofs, although I also like them.

karov · 2004-06-15 09:29:08

The David Semloh`s proposal (copy-paste). This letter contains the major part in short of his idea for open-sky-Mercury terraforming. I think it is competitive to the paraterraforming design in economical sence -- money, time...
Here:
==============================================

?????? (Usenet)
????????? ??????? ? ??????? ?????????

???????? 6 ?? ????????? ??? ???????? ?? terraforming mercury

Mars: The Red Planet DVD • A guided tour of Mars. Spacecraft video and stills. Free 3-D Glasses • http://www.plasmaartdvds.com]www.plasmaartdvds.com ??????? ?????????

???? ????????? 6
??:semloh (semloh@ficnet.net)
???????:Mercury Terraforming Prospectus
???? ? ???????????? ?????????? ? ???? ?????
View: Original Format
?????????? ?????:alt.planets.mercury
????:1999/05/10

Living on a terraformed Mercury? Impossible !?!

The Basic Mercury Terraforming Idea Has That transporting volatiles to
the world is the only "inexpensive", large-scale method. While my thinking
on how and why it would (should/could) be relatively "cheap" is glossed
over here, considerable work has been done on just about the only
practical way (a periodic comet or asteroid imitator re-directed by gravity
assist(s) to become a long-period comet streaming out toward the Ort cloud
in a ever so slightly broken apart form from the last gravity assist, for
maximum control and correctional ability, to intercept a Plutino in a
glancing blow to maximize the dV, with 0.5/sec probably necessary for the
100km sized preferrable object in a reasonable time frame for us impatient
humans ). And finding via remote sensing probes and instruments an almost
purely water/ammonia plutino [amongst the 20,000 or so in a trojan like
orbit near Pluto/Charon large enough to do the job ] is surely not the in
the cards for the near future.

Nor is it confirmed that the dissociation of the atmosphere would be as
easy as it appears, though the tables look favorable towards this end (low
enough gravity, high enough solar/atmospheric entry temperatures for
extremely rapid H2 loss -- before more than 30% has recombined -- to ensure
about a 0.3 bar atmosphere with the remainder becoming water in large, polar
hugging crater lakes).

But these "trivalities" aside, enormous rewards potentially greet a
properly done construction project. The planets (if Uranus is used for a
gravity asist) will be in place at earliest in about 50 years and require
about 40 years after that to move towards the inner system. But once that is
accomplished, hypothetically, a fresh planet would be transformed rather
rapidly. At the first weeks, though this might be stretched out over a
longer term as is useful by gradual introduction of the volatiles if
possible, the temperatures would be extremely hot, partly by design and
partly by necessity. Over the next few years weather patterns would
probably stablize much as below indicates, or that is increasingly what
models seem to show, possibly allowing the poles to be shirt-sleave
environments, especially at 87 degree + latitudes, and certainly encouraging
harvestable life as much as a thousand kms outside these boundries. Millions
of people could be very comfortably supported and housed with comparably
little expense beyond the interplanetary trip and the initial celestial
engineering job. And as population grows, building those oft mentioned
solar parasols would be a natural next step, albeit an expensive one.

And _that_ is what all my enthusiasm is about. The reader has
certainly picked out far too many what ifs for comfortable conjecture. But
the fact remains that there exist few if any other alternatives. Mars
icecaps and regolith will certainly leak out fatally poisonous C02 levels
for millennia to come and other terraformed worlds will lack the insolation
to dissociate the water and ammonia to provide a breathable atmosphere, and
have a much harder time holding on to the atmosphere with the possible
exception of our Moon. Going against intuition, Mercury seems to be an
unlikely winner in the worthwhile prospects of space settlement, and it
certainly bears further looking into than I am presently individually am
doing. In a number of respects, this proposal is no more than at a "back of
the envelope" level in a number of places at present.

The reader is also excused if images of this writer seeing one too many Star
Trek movies (no offense to Trekies, but actually I almost hated those movies
and long ago out grew most of the TV plots) come to mind. Yes, the level of
thinking here goes far beyond that kind of fantasy. I do suggest
that my idea is one of the only plausible ones in the next 150 years for a
breathable atmosphere. But Taylorian World Houses on a smaller polar crater
scale is another option for Mercury, though the scale of dissociation alone
will be enormous as it must be then done by human manufacturing processes --
if attempted anytime in the next two centuries. If my orientation, mostly
not discussed, reviewed, or posted yet, of the viability of transportating
the volatiles on a mass scale relatively cheaply and efficiently eventually
prove technologically and feasibly correct, then just remember ... you
saw it here first .

<Picture: REMARQ><Picture: Open or Check Free Email><Picture: Frequently
Asked Questions>Home > Science > Space > Space Policy (sci.space.policy)

This previous posting on RemarQ leaves out a key aspect which might cool the
planet, the effect of dust which would be very prevelent due to the great
winds and the already present talcum powder like cm or so on the surface and
greater amount near the surface which would soon be uncovered by the winds.

List of Discussions<Picture: Newer Discussion Topic>DiscussionTopic<Picture:
Older Discussion Topic>Reply to This Discussion

Message:1 of 4From:semloh <semloh@ficnet.net>Topic:Mercury Terraforming Post
BSent:Mon, 01 Feb 1999 12:30:30 -0800This is a re-written and easier to read
version

HEADER _ A Terraforming Project_ HEADER

A TERRAFORMING PROPOSAL

Relating to human settlement on the planet Mercury, there are many seemingly
impossible conditions.* Surprisingly, it still may well be the best initial
terraforming candidate if acquiring an atmosphere through the commonly
suggested gravity assisted iceteroids approach proves viable.

Consider these reasons:

1) Providing that any choice iceteroids are available at favorable orbit
periods and only needing a reasonable amount of dV, it is much better to
have a totally airless planet because iceteroids offer numerous choices of
what elements can be placed on the world. Also, the elements have the
potential to be modified partially through solar dissociation processing in
a low or highly eliptical orbit -- soon to decay -- in which Mercury beats
all other terraforming candidates by a sizable advantage.

2) It has a relatively strong gravity, enough it seems to hold on to an
atmosphere of 02 and N2/Ar (.3 bar suggested for greenhousing and
respiratory limititions) for enough centuries like a sort of celestial lay
away plan until an expensive parasol is slowly (or quickly as technology
progresses) built to decrease heat and reduce the loss of volatiles. Though
it has a strong gravity for its size (from its massive iron core), it is
also physically small++, a fact very helpful for shortening latitudinal air
current distance and to moderate the day and night differences in
temperature.

3) Weatherwise it is clear that sacrificing the equator is best for the sake
of economy, both in start up capital and of quite possibly scarce
suitable/timely/and massive iceteroids, and on Mercury it is the only viable
option at first.

With dissociation of much of the water and ammonia ice of the iceteroid, a
50%/50% allocation of the mass to air (02/N2) and liquid surface water is
possible with little more than a 100 km sized object. (More likely, with the
dissociation being not possible or cost effective, is a > 30% rate of
water transformed into 02. The extra water should make little difference as
it is impossible for it to migrate far down towards the equator due to
regolith heat and wind patterns. In any planet or planetoid with a
significant fraction of equatorial regions filled with water, easily 30
times that mass is required. In the case of an un-parasoled Mercury, the
greenhouse humidity would destroy

Economy, only allowing for the poles to be habitable, does wonders for
budgets as poles only compose about a twentieth of the surface of a planet
and yet have a millions of square kilometers of living space, with the
permanent water/snowpack area perhaps set to be 4% of Mercury.++ (Water body
depth lessening towards lower latitudes because of evaporation.) Every other
terrestial planet or moon would have to have far more water, have a dry
world with a very dense atmosphere, --

excepting the extremely difficult case of Venus. Equally important for
Mercury, H20 is a much stronger greenhouse gas than C02, so the absense of
saturated air is well worth the cost of fewer clouds and lower albedo.

Iceteroid Suitability, Availability, and Selection

Going into some detail, suitable plutinos -- David Jewitt extrapolates about
25,000 being 100 km in diameter
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/users/jewitt/ … tt/kb.html -- and kuperoids fulfilling
all minimum requirements having well rounded characteristics and no more
than traces of unwanted gasses like methane are better expected to be very
unusual, say a single body or two with present knowledge of the frozen
objects.

(Remote sensing of interior compositions will of course have to be advanced
greatly and several objects might be dragged into the gravity assist system
with the most suitable picked after interior compositions are well know by
way of a strategic fly-by Roche limit breakup. The rejects could then be
sent to Mars, the Trojans, etc. for alternative use.)

Such slow objects (~40 AU) must have a close trajectory pass in that orbit
sub-segment approach (almost all would be in stable resonance and outside
the bounds or demand very high dV) for a gravity assist, not have more than
trace amounts of C0, C02, or more harmful gasses not easily broken down,
have a composition almost wholly of water and ammonia, and be of sufficient
size. The time factor of altering the orbit, the longest period in this
terraforming project before settlement, would be a critical consideration.

I guess, rashly, that the only practical answer is to search for a Plutino
in the group (they act like Trojans) capable of being deflected by gravity
assisted now long very long period comet or asteroid of at least (in a
retrograde orbit or modified to; broken into a number of pieces from its
last pass by for maximum amount of control in a very difficult collision
operation, one with fairly limited vector force compared to the overall
kinetic energy ), with a dV slowing of .4 km/sec in order to be altered into
a orbital period like Saturn's (rotation every 30 years), or much more
desirably a .6 km/sec to ensure quicker intercept time for impatient
Earthlings on a timetable.

From there, it would be gravity assisted by Uranus (or, improbably, Neptune
or Saturn) to the rest of the solar system. Further information on the
subject, as I am familiar with it, is available upon request, but confessed
ignorance of what actually possible in this field of celestial mechanics is
readily given. A comet life projecting astronomer or celestial would be able
to say how viable this is with few passes of the gas giants and exactly how
long it would take. A comet like orbit is by far preferrable (the
Pioneer/Voyager type of fly-by is faster but goes on a curved path so takes
longer to intercept). A retrograde orbit is also considered to be a plus
even if a glancing impact of very low degree angle proves to be unworkable.

And what about Mars?

Mars almost certainly has enough volatiles, but heating up significant
amounts would be a problem involving hundreds of well guided asteroid
strikes or extremely costly subterranean thermonuclear blasts and the
atmosphere would not be breathable for a very long time, the eons long C02
outgassing then being in far too high concentrations for plants as well. A
lesser condition, initially, exists with an iceteroid atmosphere delivered,
but only somewhat. The great icecaps could then be sealed with a layer of
ice. Still, the iceteroid requirements would be at least 30 times that of
Mercury, with only a few viable areas and a steady loss to the caps. And no
easy way exists to create an 02 atmosphere.These considerations are enough
to turn to Mercury for a second look, as Mercury could become breathable and
have outdoor crops (at least under UV inhibiting plastic) and fisheries
within a mere decade if my outline of H20 dissociation contain any merit.

The Poles Revisited

Would the water really collect only at the poles?

In an iceteroid scenario, quickly almost all water would naturally be
deposited at or near the poles in a few years time, with "day" temperatures
being so fierce at the lower latitudes. It is logical. At the poles the
insolation is low and for dozens of kilometers below it shows -- average
crater bottom temperatures presently are less than

should have areas which never rise above about 102 K (4) and that even flat
surfaces at the poles would not exceed about 167 K (5).**

Slade, M. A., Butler, B. J., and Muhleman, D. O. ``Mercury Radar Imaging:
Evidence For Polar Ice.'' Science 258, 635-640, 1992.

in accepted models of an airless environment with almost nil axis tilt at
that AU, albedo, etc. Now, much of the regolithic temperature could be
overrun by creeping heat when atmosphere is introduced, but the combined
effects of a highly likely dominant east-west wind systems more like that on
the gas giants would insulate the poles from most of the worst extremes.

And the heat from the equator? Models exist involving very slowly rotating
worlds without appreciable coriolis effect (one apparently done in MIT)
suggesting latitudinal winds would be so strong that the temperature
differential between day and night be greatly lessened.

Moreover, it seems the amount of longitudinal heat transfer gets inhibited.
This is very important to keeping the poles cool. In conjunction, the
circumpolar winds only have 1200 kms to travel from midnight to noon.

David Semloh

*3 month long winters with no sun, some twilight; extreme solar storm
exposure with a weak magnetic field; hard to get to location in the solar
system, especially by gravity assists when slinging a huge iceteroid; a 184
Celsius average present regolith temperature; the probable rapid oxidation
of the regolith; greenhousing dangers, and the list goes on. But none are
insurmountable, nor is the idea of
economy.

++ Mercury is a pretty small object with corresponding sq. km. ; It has
about twice the surface area of the moon but only an eighth of the Earth's
surface area and half that of Mars. This would miminize iceteroid
requirements further, about to a ratio of 1:150 for an economical Mercury to
an oceanic (and very unlikely any time soon) Venus terraforming project.

** Temperatures quickly rise in decreasing lattitudes as soon as the
sunlight penetrates even briefly into the bottoms, except with smaller
craters (which have
relatively higher inclination depths for being shaded continuously, but
receive more wall IR). Within small craters regolith bottoms are ~ 0 Celsius
down to the 50th latitude presently.

This is useful for settlements as it easily allows sizable, permanent bodies
of water (a few km across) to collect down in the 50 to 60 degree range,
helping
moderate peak temperatures with the reservoir heat aspects and ground effect
of cold sinking (so the body does not dry up easily, not lasting to peak
periods). While not suitable for humans in most senses of the word and lakes
would be but a few percent of the land, these latitudes could provide an
additional buffer
from equatorial heat transfers.

*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com/]http://www.remarq.com/ - Discussions Start Here ™
***

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:2 of 4From:Nicholas Landau <nlandau@eden.rutgers.edu>Topic:Re:
Mercury Terraforming Post BSent:15 Feb 1999 19:46:35 -0500semloh@ficnet.net
(semloh) writes:

Key:
< (my earlier post)
 Bold Nicholas Landau
nothing D. Semloh's reply

>Moreover, it seems the amount of longitudinal heat transfer gets inhibited.
This is very important to keeping the >poles cool. In conjunction, the
circumpolar winds only have 1200 kms to travel from midnight to noon.

Let me get this straight: with no coriolis effect, the winds will *not* blow
from equator to pole? Are you sure that you don't have this backwards?

Winds here are driven by the temperature gradient between the equator and
the poles (a gradient which will be *much much* more powerful on Mercury).
The coriolis effect is the cause of circulation cells and the resulting E/W
winds all over the world. The introductory lecture of Atmosphere and Weather
included the professor's assertion that, without the coriolis effect, the
world would have only two circulation cells: the Northern Hemisphere and the
Southern hemisphere.

The gas giants mentioned in the post have extremely powerful coriolis
effects, and so have powerful circulation along lines of latitude.

The whole notion that the circulation along longitutidal lines would be weak
seems contrary to intuition and it is also very central to your assertions
that Mercury would make a nice place to live. Based on intuition and a
little knowledge, I would assume that a powerful convection cell would have
its center at the Mercurial equator, at which point the atmosphere would
rise causing an atmospheric convergence.

Circulation would thus run from pole to equator. Actually, that is good news
in terms of temperature balance, because that means that (relatively) cold
air from the upper atmosphere would be sinking at the poles. However, its
bad news for moisture balance because the moisture at the poles (where I
assume 100% of the liquid water will be found) will be transported to the
equator. It will not re-precipitate along the way.

Hmmm...actually, that depends. As the air rises at the equator, it will
cool. For all I know, it will cool enough to form clouds at high altitude.
This would be good albedo medicine.

Well, in any case, the process by which high-altitude air is dried here on
Earth (the precipitation of the moisture as the air rises in convergence
zones) will not be present...if the water precipitates from the clouds, it
will evaporate again as it falls to Mercury's searing equator.

Well, getting back to my original point, how in creation do you explain no
cross-latitudinal winds in world without a Coriolis effect? You haven't
explained this at all so far as I have read, only cited others. It sounds
awfully wrong, and it is very important.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:3 of 4From:semloh <semloh@ficnet.net>Topic:Re: Mercury Terraforming
Post BSent:Mon, 05 Apr 1999 14:58:13 -0800Should I sent you the complete
message I wrote up (and already posted ... finally ... on March 30th, 1999
Space Policy)? Let it first be said that the dominant force by far on a
slowly rotating world will be the day to night energy imbalance, even more
of an overall calorie or kinetic imbalance overall than an extremely great
discrepency of pole and equator temperature, a good deal greater than the
day to night ambient temperature difference, excepting the crucial
cumulative effect [of weight and resultant force]. This is due to the 10:1
ratio or so of land surface area, more so in the case of the extreme poles
where the polar vortex should be operating.

D. Semloh

**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com/]http://www.remarq.com/ - Discussions Start Here
™ ****

**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com/]http://www.remarq.com/ - Discussions Start Here ™ ****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

atitarev · 2004-06-18 20:36:01

Some Sci-Fi passage about the terraformed Mercury. I would say it's paraterraformed, though:

The planet closest to the sun is Mercury, and it is the fourth world to be terraformed. Unlike those previous, however, its surface is not inhabitable. Rather, while the surface of Mercury is bleak and lifeless - baked on one side by the sun, cold and dead on the other - it has shielded starports located along the Terminator Line between "dayside" and "nightside", which provide access to a vast underground network known as the Webway, which connects artificial subterranean biospheres known as Underworlds.
Mercury is the domain of Mishima, and its insular nature means that others have had very little success in encroaching upon its domain. The largest Underworld - and the base of Mishima's operations - is Longshore, Mishima's primary starport. Longshore is a vast cavern with the Underground Ocean on its floor, and includes several islands that lie beneath an artificial sky. The central island, also known as Longshore, is located underneath a crater that provides an opening to space, shielded by an ancient wonder of technology known as the Celestial Shield - a plastic dome that keeps air in and radiation out, but which allows starships to pass through, and then knits itself back together once they have passed. Although Mishima is not on the best of terms with the Brotherhood, the Longshore Cathedral can be found here, the Brotherhood's only base of operations on Mercury.
The other major starport is Fukido, which is basically the Mercurian equivalent to Hong Kong in some respects. Due to a bit of a bungle on the part of the Mishimans, Imperial managed to secure a lease to 99% of the properties in Fukido, which is located directly opposite Longshore. The lease only lasts for 99 years, and is bound to expire in a few years, but Imperial has operated it as a nearly anarchistic capitalistic free enterprise city, and various entrepreneurs have flocked here despite the lack of long term security, and the ever present danger that Lord Moya (the Mishiman Lord Heir that oversees Mishima) might just get fed up with Imperial's antics, break the agreement, and drive the foreigners out of the city.
Although Longshore is Mishima's largest city, its official capitol is Yamato, located in yet another, less accessible underworld, though not far from Longshore underneath the surface.

MarsDog · 2004-06-19 12:44:32

If the same face of Mercury always faced the Sun, then a large part would be under similar conditions as the poles, allowing ice to settle, providing more water. On the sunny side, it would be easier to aim the solar cells toward the Sun.
The transition zone would be an interesting place to live.

atitarev · 2004-06-20 02:27:20

If the same face of Mercury always faced the Sun, then a large part would be under similar conditions as the poles, allowing ice to settle, providing more water. On the sunny side, it would be easier to aim the solar cells toward the Sun.
The transition zone would be an interesting place to live.

Mercury rotates 3 times in 2 of its years, a fact known since 1965 but the solar day is twice as long as its orbital period (year). Venus has (luckily) an opposite effect because of its retrograde rotation.

Orbital or Sidereal period 87.97 Earth days
Synodic period 115.88 days
Rotation period 58.646 Earth days =
2/3 orbital period
Solar rotation period
(noontime to noontime, or
one Mercurian day) 175.84 Earth days =
2 Mercurian years

http://www.mira.org/fts0/planets/092/te … tm]Mercury Facts

MarsDog · 2004-06-22 14:24:28

If the rotation of Mercury was changed, so that one side always faced the Sun, exploiting its resources would be easier. Factories could be located in the twilight zone. But would it get hot enough to melt the Sun facing surface ?

karov · 2004-06-25 12:37:42

The simulations show that if a planet with atmosphere is tidaly locked around a star, than its air currants will be sufficient to balance the average temperatures on the night and the day side. Plant life off cource could be groun only on the day side (not all of it) and along the twighlight zone, if artificial diurnal cycle is not induced by mirrors. On Venus not only the thick atmosphere equalizes the day-night and pollar-equatorial temperatures -- the specific weather system balances the big differences out also, as proposed for Mercury, by David Semloh, from the quote above.

But, to stop the spin of Mercury is simply ineconomical.

atitarev · 2004-06-25 22:25:40

The simulations show that if a planet with atmosphere is tidaly locked around a star, than its air currants will be sufficient to balance the average temperatures on the night and the day side. Plant life off cource could be groun only on the day side (not all of it) and along the twighlight zone, if artificial diurnal cycle is not induced by mirrors. On Venus not only the thick atmosphere equalizes the day-night and pollar-equatorial temperatures -- the specific weather system balances the big differences out also, as proposed for Mercury, by David Semloh, from the quote above.
But, to stop the spin of Mercury is simply ineconomical.

If the air currants can balance the temperatures on an acceptable level, why do we need to change the rotation in the fist place?

If we are able to move Mercury away from the Sun, even to its aphelion position and change its rotation to match Earth - that would be a much better solution. We could get a hot but tolerable climate, possibly only on and near the poles. The rest of the planet, if its too hot could be domed or dug.

Mercury's magnetic field (1% of Earth levels) is protecting it from excess radiation when it is not in perihelion.

I am sure there could be other engineering solutions - even with the way Mercury is right now.

karov · 2004-06-26 14:43:25

The quoted above open-sky terraforming of Mercury as it is orbitaly and rotationaly ( not even mention such enormous astroengeneering works as moving or spinning faster the planet) advocate David Semloh, states that even the elipticity of the Mercurian orbit is tolerable in terms of insolation and termal ballance. In his scheme, as you see shirt-sleeve livable for humans are just about 2 mln. sq. km. at the poles, where lots of pockets with microclimate ideal for habitation are forming -- to biult cities, etc. About 1000 km south and north of the repected poles, harvestable biota lives. The rest of the planet is covered constantly with thunder-storm clouds` cover. The equatorial currants push the heated air mass, together with the completelly evaporated from the lower latitudes water, in these directions - UP, to the night side, and finally to the poles, where the air demoisurizes (the same way as it is on Venus, minus the water). This circulation effectively blocks the heat off the habitable and inhabited pollar regions.

In the polar areas the long diurnal cycle is not a problem. The Sun moves around the horizont - big and red - its direct heat blocked by hundreds of km.s air line. Enen on the circumpolar "night side" there is enough 'twighlight'.

If the polar colonisators ever decide to terraform the rest of the astronomical body surface -- mirroring out or deflecting the light from these regions, than 3 month of day and 3 months of night, could occur to be adaptable for organisms. As shown the air flows redistribute planetwide the heat, without evaporating the entire water tables at big noon, or freezing it at big midnight.

With its original diurnal cycle Mercury will resemble Venus ( 2 months day + 2 months night) -- a situation known from the earths polar regions with even worse lenght of 6 months.

Yes, here higher from the polar circle there aren`t trees, but trees with winter/night sleep are engineerable. Effective and vivid human-compatible ecology could be instaled (say, via migrational mechanism of certain species for distribution of the energy) even on tidally locked worlds. If the last are around , say, brown dwarfs -- than we should consider IR-light photosynthesis...

But, surely Mercury could be made human-livable without total roofing, change of its orbit or axial rotation, or complete parasoling, thus the planet to retain most of its uniqueness, and to be beautiful, interesting place to live.

Mag-sail`s manner artificial magnetic field increase could be used the planet to keep its atmosphere so close to the Sun.

Niotice, that planetary outer-surface open-sky human-compatible worlds could be sustained by soleta light deflection even as close as several solar RADII to the Sun. That means dozens of thousands times bigger insolation than earth receives. And as I many times pointed out -- as far as half the distance to the nearest star by soleta light collection...

Mercury is not so hot and illuminated world in astroengineering sence!!!

atitarev · 2004-06-26 19:11:31

The quoted above open-sky terraforming of Mercury as it is orbitaly and rotationaly ( not even mention such enormous astroengeneering works as moving or spinning faster the planet) advocate David Semloh, states that even the elipticity of the Mercurian orbit is tolerable in terms of insolation and termal ballance. In his scheme, as you see shirt-sleeve livable for humans are just about 2 mln. sq. km. at the poles, where lots of pockets with microclimate ideal for habitation are forming -- to biult cities, etc. About 1000 km south and north of the repected poles, harvestable biota lives. The rest of the planet is covered constantly with thunder-storm clouds` cover. The equatorial currants push the heated air mass, together with the completelly evaporated from the lower latitudes water, in these directions - UP, to the night side, and finally to the poles, where the air demoisurizes (the same way as it is on Venus, minus the water). This circulation effectively blocks the heat off the habitable and inhabited pollar regions.
In the polar areas the long diurnal cycle is not a problem. The Sun moves around the horizont - big and red - its direct heat blocked by hundreds of km.s air line. Enen on the circumpolar "night side" there is enough 'twighlight'.
If the polar colonisators ever decide to terraform the rest of the astronomical body surface -- mirroring out or deflecting the light from these regions, than 3 month of day and 3 months of night, could occur to be adaptable for organisms. As shown the air flows redistribute planetwide the heat, without evaporating the entire water tables at big noon, or freezing it at big midnight.
With its original diurnal cycle Mercury will resemble Venus ( 2 months day + 2 months night) -- a situation known from the earths polar regions with even worse lenght of 6 months.
Yes, here higher from the polar circle there aren`t trees, but trees with winter/night sleep are engineerable. Effective and vivid human-compatible ecology could be instaled (say, via migrational mechanism of certain species for distribution of the energy) even on tidally locked worlds. If the last are around , say, brown dwarfs -- than we should consider IR-light photosynthesis...
But, surely Mercury could be made human-livable without total roofing, change of its orbit or axial rotation, or complete parasoling, thus the planet to retain most of its uniqueness, and to be beautiful, interesting place to live.
Mag-sail`s manner artificial magnetic field increase could be used the planet to keep its atmosphere so close to the Sun.
Niotice, that planetary outer-surface open-sky human-compatible worlds could be sustained by soleta light deflection even as close as several solar RADII to the Sun. That means dozens of thousands times bigger insolation than earth receives. And as I many times pointed out -- as far as half the distance to the nearest star by soleta light collection...
Mercury is not so hot and illuminated world in astroengineering sence!!!

Very interesting, Karov, where can I get more info on David Semloh's scheme?

My search on google got me to this site: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/planet … ges]Planet Mercury Society but I didn't find anything on terraforming.

karov · 2004-06-26 19:58:02

Look at the page 2 of this thread. There I copy-pasted the major part of the postings of David Semloh, which I found in old discussion boards archives. For more ask Google, Groups about "David Semloh Mercury terraforming". It seems this guy understands a lot of meteorology and climatology...

atitarev · 2004-06-26 22:30:17

Look at the page 2 of this thread. There I copy-pasted the major part of the postings of David Semloh, which I found in old discussion boards archives. For more ask Google, Groups about "David Semloh Mercury terraforming". It seems this guy understands a lot of meteorology and climatology...

Thank you,

I have sent an invitation to this forum to Paul Birch a few days ago (a "Quick Terraform Specialist" ). Not sure if his email address is still active.

Another terrafoming advocate is Gerald Nordley:

http://www.sfwa.org/members/Nordley/]ht … s/Nordley/

He wrote an interesting article about terraforming small planets/moons:

http://www.sfwa.org/members/Nordley/Gra … ravity.pdf

I have just sent him a note.

EDIT:

Here's his answer:

... Concerning terraforming smaller bodies, one idea that I may have not thrown
in SGIS is that it would be useful for atmosphere retention if they had their
own magnetic field. Looking back to Zubrin and Andrew's Analog article on
magnetic sails (1990 or so?), the equations they present could be applied to an
equatorial superconducting pipeline around a small body--Trans Siberian railroad
scale engineering. The field so generated would create an artificial
magnetosphere around the body and keep the solar wind from blowing the atmosphere
away. It would also, of course, double as a power distribution system. ;-) ...

Mercury has already some magnetosphere but it needs to be enhanced.

karov · 2004-06-27 07:12:51

Thank you very very much, Anatolii !!!

This article was very usefull for me -- confirming absolutelly what I thought and posted in several threads here about the minor (sub-terrestrial G) worlds terraforming possibilty and practicity. I literally enjoy it.

As well the red dwarfs of M and K class represent more than 80% of the star`s total number, the same way the Mars-Mercury and Moon-Titan style of planets are many times more probable to reside in the other solar systems. We could have liquid-water tempeature at the (bioformed!) surface without the earth-level insolation, at low gravity and low enough escape velocity/exobase temperature ratio the atmosphere to be retained for billions of years. Even for very small bodies with surface gravity from 1% to 5% of the earths` we could use comperativelly simple countermeasures to the termal and solar-wind atmosphere dissipation, even without global roofing = artificial or modified magnetosphere
+ kinda exobase 'refrigerator'?

"Resonance heating and infrared radiation the gas giant itself would push the 'habitable zone' out even further. Indeed one can imagine situations where having a central star is irrelevant to the question of habitability." -- from the article about the power supply of permanent, billion-years of lifespan biospheres...

I think the theme should not stay here at Mercury terraforming. It represents the major part in numbers of the terraforming mass-spectra of bodies, and deserves separate thread. An average galaxy as ours should contain MANY TRILLIONS of bodies between the Moon and Earth size. We can not and shouldn`t leave them uncolonised.

karov · 2004-06-27 10:46:25

EDIT:
Here's his answer:
... Concerning terraforming smaller bodies, one idea that I may have not thrown
in SGIS is that it would be useful for atmosphere retention if they had their
own magnetic field. Looking back to Zubrin and Andrew's Analog article on
magnetic sails (1990 or so?), the equations they present could be applied to an
equatorial superconducting pipeline around a small body--Trans Siberian railroad
scale engineering. The field so generated would create an artificial
magnetosphere around the body and keep the solar wind from blowing the atmosphere
away. It would also, of course, double as a power distribution system. ;-) ...
Mercury has already some magnetosphere but it needs to be enhanced.

I`m very glad that "my" notion about using mag-sails (or on-ground superconductive line) is in such way confirmed by a scientist and specialist in the field like Gerald Nordley!

The described Zubrin-Andrew`s scheme is wanderfully simple and multipurpose facilty. Such work could be done also, may be, by circled wires in free or forced (Forward`s statites) orbits arround the protected globe or with orthogonal orbital ring systems` 'cages' in Burch`s style -- ALSO serving as electric energy and momentum transfer, production and storage devices. The lines of magnetic force in order the body to retain its atmosphere for geological periods of time should be arranged in such way, so to bring the escaping atoms back, say through the polar areas.

Conserning the gas toruses which form along the orbital paths of moons around the gas giants - this itself represents atmosphere contra-leakage mechanism - natural, which should be in situ amplified in order not to exist significant net loss. Imagine Io passing through lots of huge rings of superconducting wire -- mag-sails designed to redirect back the escaping gases -- part of giant system for harnessing the enormous rotational 'dynamo' energy of the giant.

The plasma in magnetosphere use to blow it wider. With injecting certain chemicals or even complex "dusty plasma" fillers (of, say, smart nano-particles) - which as we know gives the dusted plasma certain quasi-cristalic properties - we could find means of drastic decrease of the exobase temperature and for tolerable decelerating of the solar wind energy - even causing the last to produce usefull energy for keeping the air on place, as well as to regulate the albedo without huge monolite soletas...

SpaceNut · 2006-05-06 07:40:52

Colonizing Mercury, Could It Be Done?

Mercury is a world unlike any other. Reaching temperatures up to 427 degrees Celsius, Mercury is not the place one would choose to go sun-tanning.
Mercury is a very barren and harsh planet, with little economic value, unlike the Moon. But what if technology revealed precious metals beneath its surface, enough to convince humanity to face the dangers of space, and reap its potential resources for our benefit. Would we be able to colonize the first rock from the Sun? Could it be done?

MarsDog · 2006-05-08 15:33:54

Colonizing yes, Terraforming needs innovation.

Change rotation so one side always faces the Sun.
  Tidally locked as the Moon.
  Water and gasses would settle out on the dark side.
  Habitable zones at poles and light dark division.
  Underground complexes at thermal comfort levels.
  Excevate 20 km down and build 20 km mountains to trap atmosphere.
  large mirrors on the mountaintops would reflect sublight.
  Crash comets for volatiles.

Spin up Mercury so it becomes a disk.
Reduced sunlight, but gravitationally complex.
A way to turn Mercury inside out.

karov · 2006-05-10 03:40:17

Colonizing Mercury, Could It Be Done?
Mercury is a world unlike any other. Reaching temperatures up to 427 degrees Celsius, Mercury is not the place one would choose to go sun-tanning.
Mercury is a very barren and harsh planet, with little economic value, unlike the Moon. But what if technology revealed precious metals beneath its surface, enough to convince humanity to face the dangers of space, and reap its potential resources for our benefit. Would we be able to colonize the first rock from the Sun? Could it be done?

Look page 2 of this Mercury topic. No need for spinning, roofing, etc.
Mercury is cold enough world for classical terraforming.

Austin Stanley · 2006-06-02 07:15:11

Mercury is realy far to close to the sun, to small, and to tidally locked to make surface terraformation a good idea. But that is not necessarily the only way to go! It might be very possible to terraform the INSIDE of the planet. Mecury probably has a solid core, which is likely VERY rich in dense metals (iorn primarily, but with other goodies in their to. Build a orbital mirror and burn a very deep whole in at one (or both) of the poles. Then dome the whole with some semi-reflective material to block out what remains of the suns rays. The whole could potentialy be of extreamly large size because Mercury's gravityis very weak, and because the interior atmosphere could help support it. Then you would have nice living quarters ready to take advantage of mercuries vast mineral and energy wealth.

karov · 2006-06-02 12:18:20

This is mega-excavationist paraterreaformation heresy!!!

MarsDog · 2006-06-03 01:12:16

The whole could potentialy be of extreamly large size because Mercury's gravity is very weak

Similar surface gravity as Mars.
On Earth, ocean bottom to top of Mt. Everest around 20 km.
On Mercury, max differential around 50 km ?
Then dig caves and tunnels for another 50 km ?

Good idea to use orbital mirrors as the landscaping tool, vaporize to form valleys.

With solar intensity 24 times that of Mars, thermal management is the key.
Without an atmosphere, you could get very innovative.

karov · 2006-06-04 04:41:56

Actually the vacuum is not an advantage at all...
Semloh-ization of Mercury via deposit of some ( several ~100 km KBOs of ammonia and water ), and than all the solar power collectors ( nano-solar combined with MW / masers emiting UPward to an array of transmission and utilization satelites and statites ) hovering in the 50-100 km hight of ... the atmosphere as mere mechanical support for the little aerostats. Thick layer of such micro-baloons could even compensate the excess of solar influx without orbiting mirrors... The same layer of smart particles ( doing simultaneously transformation and sequestration of excess power, albedo regulation, etc... etc...) could amplify the Mercury mag-field and to organize it in atmosphere-retention mechanism .. powered by the Sun, capturing not only the EM tradiation, but also as mag-sail the solar wind..., serving also as base for mag-lev global transport and so on. Open skyes. Made the 'particles' self-reproducing ( as even kinda strange light-to-MW "fluorescence" organisms "wired" in a whole by "microbial inteligence - communicating by light, EM, chemicals ), and such system could protect even a world much hotter and smaller than Mercury...
The passive systems brake up globally and suddenly cause of their intrinsic high "coarsness" , the active micro- and nano-cellular utilizing to protect the biosphere the same power flux which in principle destroys them is the solution. Like "pepered" "force field"... as stronger the hit as bigger the feedback - the responce of the protection system. I think it is possible that such "High Hot Biosphere" could be designed via mere gengeneering on RNA , DNA base or in the worst case via synthetical biology including other bases in the NAs, new aminoacids, or even new chemicals, BUT designed to be compatible with the solid surface earth-like biosphere bellow. The High-Hot-Biosphere even could produce food for the lower with decreased insolation one the same way the sunlit ocean surfaces provide with biomass / biochemical free energy the eternal darkness of the ocean bottoms here, but not on such extreme. The MW emited excess sun-power could be exported to the Outer system - directly as re-focussed MW or laser , or stored as nuclear isomers, heavy elements, or best as antimatter / positrons...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_Intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminescence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation

MarsDog · 2006-06-04 22:21:10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Merc … de_Lmb.png
If you excevated one pole and piled it up on the other pole,
would the core be eventually exposed ?
Atmosphere would collect at the bottom.

karov · 2006-06-07 09:39:59

The excavation could be kept from fallback via dynamic compression members / flywheels / counter-pressure rotating rings inside...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-09 19:04:26

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#27 2004-06-14 12:42:09

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#28 2004-06-14 18:04:20

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#29 2004-06-15 09:29:08

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#30 2004-06-18 20:36:01

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#31 2004-06-19 12:44:32

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#32 2004-06-20 02:27:20

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#33 2004-06-22 14:24:28

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#34 2004-06-25 12:37:42

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#35 2004-06-25 22:25:40

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#36 2004-06-26 14:43:25

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#37 2004-06-26 19:11:31

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#38 2004-06-26 19:58:02

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#39 2004-06-26 22:30:17

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#40 2004-06-27 07:12:51

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#41 2004-06-27 10:46:25

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#42 2006-05-06 07:40:52

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#43 2006-05-08 15:33:54

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#44 2006-05-10 03:40:17

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#45 2006-06-02 07:15:11

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#46 2006-06-02 12:18:20

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#47 2006-06-03 01:12:16

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#48 2006-06-04 04:41:56

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#49 2006-06-04 22:21:10

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

#50 2006-06-07 09:39:59

Re: Terraforming Mercury - Is anyone this crazy?

Board footer