New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#1 2002-09-24 09:53:12

Number04
Member
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Registered: 2002-09-24
Posts: 162

Re: on a smaller scale

isn't most of the mars atmosphere CO2? Back in the day when I was doing grade 7 science, in my little brain, this thinking immerged.

Plants use CO2 and change it into oxygen. I breath oxygen. If I wanted to breath, I plant allot of plants.

It's not teraforming the planet, but say, a dome or base. Build it on the ground, have patches of mars sticking out of the floor and build a sort of CO2 exchange device to give the residence clean air.

This would also no doubt yield invaluable information on future efforts.

And give you a nice garden.

Offline

#2 2002-09-24 09:56:19

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: on a smaller scale

CO2 in large concentrations kills plants.


Also, Mars "floor" is comprised of super-oxidized dirt sterilized by cosmic radiation, a lack of nitrates, or any of bio-bits for soil.

Mars soil does not grow plants. Fungus.... maybe.

Offline

#3 2002-09-24 15:57:30

Number04
Member
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Registered: 2002-09-24
Posts: 162

Re: on a smaller scale

Well no one said the plan was perfect. Take a small amount of dirt, treat it, and then when the plant matter dies, and use it as fertilizer for more. Will take a while in the start, but that's food your making.

It seams really simple, but that's what always gets screwed up in the end if you ask me.

Offline

#4 2002-09-24 19:54:24

Phobos
Member
Registered: 2002-01-02
Posts: 1,103

Re: on a smaller scale

It's not teraforming the planet, but say, a dome or base. Build it on the ground, have patches of mars sticking out of the floor and build a sort of CO2 exchange device to give the residence clean air.

This would also no doubt yield invaluable information on future efforts.

And give you a nice garden.

This is the type of "terraforming" that I think will become standard on Mars at least for a very long time.  It's just easier to build massive structures that give you plenty of habitable space than to terraform an entire planet.  There are extremophile bacteria that might be up to the CO2 task you spoke of.  If there's bacteria on Earth that can survive boiling temperatures and thrive in millions of rads of radiation, I don't think you'll have a problem.  I know I've read articles that claimed certain types of bacteria could live in Martian conditions provided they had water (which we could provide for them), but I can't remember where they are right off the top of my head.  I'll get back to this. 

Also, Mars "floor" is comprised of super-oxidized dirt sterilized by cosmic radiation, a lack of nitrates, or any of bio-bits for soil.

Nothing a little soils engineering can't take care of.  Anyway, don't get the idea Martian soil is totally unsuitable for plants. It does contain a lot of the inorganic nutrients they need like sulfur, potassium, etc .  We'll just have to treat it first.  #4's idea of recycling organic matter into the soil will work fine if we just take the fertilizer, etc,  we need for our first batch of crops and then recycle organic wastes back into the soil from there.


To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd

Offline

#5 2002-09-25 01:33:09

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: on a smaller scale

Quote from Clark:-

    'Also, Mars "floor" is comprised of super-oxidised dirt sterilised by cosmic radiation, ...'

    Why is it everybody STILL insists on chanting the same tired mantra about the composition of Martian soil?!
    This super-oxide and peroxide hypothesis was put forward in 1977 by the Viking scientists who were labouring under a complete misapprehension at the time.
    Inventor of the Labelled Release Experiment on Viking, Dr Gilbert Levin, has since done a great deal of work to show the serious weaknesses in the 'exotic Martian soil-chemistry' hypothesis. For a detailed description of his important work and its conclusions, click here.
    I think it's high time we at New Mars, obviously intelligent people with an abiding interest in the Red Planet, stopped regurgitating 25 year-old unsubstantiated supposition as though it were fact!
    PLEASE, PLEASE, can we all read what Dr. Levin has written and stop it with all the super-oxide nonsense?!! We really should know better by now.
                                        ???


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#6 2002-09-25 08:40:37

clark
Member
Registered: 2001-09-20
Posts: 6,362

Re: on a smaller scale

PLEASE, PLEASE, can we all read what Dr. Levin has written and stop it with all the super-oxide nonsense?!! We really should know better by  now.

I would think that a lack of an atmosphere, or a magnetic field, would lead us to believe that mars is subjected to quite a bit of cosmic radiation, and such radiation would lead to sterilization of the upper crust of regolith. I would also imagine that the chemical composition of the soil itself and the environmental conditions of mars would lead to oxidation of the top layer of regolith.

Another source for what we know, and don't know about the martian soil, go to:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/mars/ask/soil/

Offline

#7 2002-09-25 17:58:03

Phobos
Member
Registered: 2002-01-02
Posts: 1,103

Re: on a smaller scale

I would think that a lack of an atmosphere, or a magnetic field, would lead us to believe that mars is subjected to quite a bit of cosmic radiation, and such radiation would lead to sterilization of the upper crust of regolith. I would also imagine that the chemical composition of the soil itself and the environmental conditions of mars would lead to oxidation of the top layer of regolith.

For what's its worth, it's irrelevant to #4's idea if the upper crust is sterilized or not.  He was mentioning the use of plants in structures that would obviously have the technology to block harmful radiation if they were to be used for human habitation.  Anyhow, there are lifeforms on Earth that can survive millions of rads of radiation and still live.  To give you some idea of how significant that is, 1000 rems will kill any human being.   So I'm not convinced that the radiation levels received on Mars should automatically lead us to the conclusion that the upper crust is sterilized.

I think it's high time we at New Mars, obviously intelligent people with an abiding interest in the Red Planet, stopped regurgitating 25 year-old unsubstantiated supposition as though it were fact!

Speak it Shaun! smile


To achieve the impossible you must attempt the absurd

Offline

#8 2002-09-25 19:36:16

Shaun Barrett
Member
From: Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Registered: 2001-12-28
Posts: 2,843

Re: on a smaller scale

Yeh! I do get a little hot under the collar now and then!
    I meant no offense to Clark when I climbed back up onto my soap-box. It's just that I get frustrated by the phenomenon of 'received wisdom a la media'!!
    A bunch of non-scientist journalists, who think the Tharsis Bulge is something to do with a weight-loss program, latch onto a preliminary hypothesis, devised to explain the Viking results in 1977. Despite a quarter of a century of further research into those results, during which countless advances have been made in our understanding of the prevailing conditions on Mars and the extraordinary hardiness of microscopic life-forms, the paradigm remains!
    It's like we're stuck in a time warp. It's still 1977. Mars is geologically dead, its surface dessicated, its regolith frozen solid to depths measured in kilometres. Nothing much has happened there for 3 billion years.
    I can't believe it! How long do we have to wait until another journalist gives us permission to move on and see Mars as it's understood today?!!

    Oops!! There I go again! ("The sooner he falls off that soap-box and breaks his neck, the better!" ...... I HEARD THAT?!! )
                                          wink


The word 'aerobics' came about when the gym instructors got together and said: If we're going to charge $10 an hour, we can't call it Jumping Up and Down.   - Rita Rudner

Offline

#9 2002-09-26 21:45:58

kalizarin
Banned
From: Columbia, MD
Registered: 2002-09-25
Posts: 4

Re: on a smaller scale

> Also, Mars "floor" is comprised of super-oxidized dirt sterilized by cosmic radiation, a lack of nitrates, or any of bio-bits for soil.

Nothing a little soils engineering can't take care of.

Within limits.  One of the biggest challenges to any plant life trying to take root in Martian soil is the lack of nitrogen in the soil.  On Earth, you can compensate for that, but how will you do it on Mars?  You'll need the nitrogen to come from *somewhere*. 

Anyway, don't get the idea Martian soil is totally unsuitable for plants. It does contain a lot of the inorganic nutrients they need like sulfur, potassium, etc .  We'll just have to treat it first.

Now I'm a big fan of Mars exploration, and perhaps eventual colonization.  But I don't think this approach is feasible, unless there's some additional technology thrown into the mix (and some source of nitrogen).  The other big problem, as has been mentioned, is the radiation.  Sure, you could build a dome to block out the radiation - but it'd be several meters thick and no light would make it through.  If you want sunlight (which you probably do for your plants), then designing glass that lets visible, IR, and some UV in but nothing else is what you want - I don't think we have anything like that currently (I'd love to hear otherwise).

Recycling organic matter really isn't enough, though it might help.  We have a lot of desert land here on Earth.  I've lived in southern Utah, where it's not even a full desert (rather, a "high desert", which gets just a bit more annual rainfall).  The dirt is iron-rich, nitrate-poor, high in alkalides.  It's a constant battle to get anything to grow there, no matter how much dead organic matter, water, nitrates, shade, and other treatments you throw at it.  I can only imagine how many orders of magnitude worse it will be for Mars. smile

Offline

#10 2002-09-27 15:50:44

Josh Cryer
Moderator
Registered: 2001-09-29
Posts: 3,830

Re: on a smaller scale

Yeah, I think KSR was right on with his portrayal of ?synthetic soil? on Mars. It's going to prove very difficult, I'm afraid. That doesn't prevent us from growing stuff there, though. There's always hydroponics.


Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.

Offline

#11 2002-10-22 09:39:57

Number04
Member
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Registered: 2002-09-24
Posts: 162

Re: on a smaller scale

Would it be possible to get a sample of Martian soil and synthesize it here to test how difficult it would actually be?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB