Asteroids' Contributions

chat · 2005-03-26 05:46:41

srmeaney,

Mars is a place that really doesn't need a teraform for humanity to take up residence, but it would be nice to see mars less hostile to all of life.

The comet is the ideal solution to teraforming Mars as long as it's just the 1 comet we need to do most of the teraform.
Or more correctly get mars to teraform itself.

I still think either of the moons are the simplest way to teraform mars.

I do understand the love affair with people that say leave the moons out of any equation to teraforming mars.

But both moons are in retrograde orbits doomed to end up on mars anyway.

De orbiting one wouldn't be a hurculean effort, and without doubt a mars changer.

The down side with the moon idea is an almost guaranteed long nuclear winter after impact, but the same approach as the comet could be tried.

As soon as its getting close to the atmosphere 1 big nuclear explosion at the heart of the moon should blast it into a million pieces.

Or as you pointed out, slam all of the moon into Olympus mons or the poles and hope for an enormous gas release from mars and a not to awful a nuclear winter.

You would need a mighty good guess at what this does since a mistake in the guess could result in a 1000 year nuclear winter, or an unexpected release of gas that pushes mars to a place more like Venus.

Or even worse a place that freezes solid during a long nuclear winter, then rebounds to 150c after the dust settles, and it rains boiling peroxide laced rain.

Sounds rather silly for mars to become a Venus like world but on earth the dinosaur impact had a pretty devastating effect for a very long time.
And that was on a pretty robust planet with many mechanisms to stop runaway greenhouse and freezing scenarios.

Pretty easy to make mars a much worse place for a very long time.

I figure about 75 years away they will be discussing the same ideas, long after they have put the life on mars arguments to bed, and long after many manned walks on mars.

chat · 2005-03-26 05:54:14

EarthWolf,

1 big rocket and 6 months to de orbit a mars moon.

I think Austin is right about the comet times, anything from a few years to many centuries depending on what you pick and where it is.

Dook · 2005-03-26 08:20:20

So, we will probably have to decide on whether we wait a hundred years as the planet succumbs to orbital bombardment (wiping out any life that may be in the impact zone) and goes Greenhouse on us, or if we colonize now and terraform the friendly way with orbital dumping of coal for a thousand years.

Why do you keep talking about the orbital dumping of coal? We don't need to do that to terraform mars and if we did then mars will never be terraformed.

Mars likely has enough CO2 to begin terraforming itself if we can just warm it an average of 4 degrees at the southern pole. Mirrors and greenhouse gas factories should be able to do it.

srmeaney · 2005-03-26 10:25:55

1. A simple increase in air pressure will push the CO2 ice to gas. It's current freezing point is higher than it is on Earth because the air pressure is less.

2. The Dumping of Coal into the planetary atmosphere to burn up and produce the various greenhouse gasses is designed to fill the gap between what is there, what is yet needed, and where it will need to be if we are to produce even the ruddiest of crops from that little dust ball of a planet.

3. The use of Coal to produce Greenhouse Gasses allows us to Reside on the Planet without a big de-orbiting moon killing everyone and allows us to survey and monitor current life on Mars without humans being that which causes it's demise.

4. There is no coal, or oil on the planet Mars. That means that after terraforming, Sugarcane will be the most important crop on Mars (Sugarcane will allow us to reduce and control Greenhouse gasses). The majority of which will be used to produce Methanol to power Martian Industry. Despite dreams of a nuclear reactor in every Martian house.

srmeaney · 2005-03-26 10:32:39

Increasing air pressure may be as simple as a moon orbiting not outside the atmosphere but inside it. The Sonic shockwave will increase the atmospheric pressure and trigger the melting of CO2 ice. If such an "orbit" could be sustained, Greenhouse gasses might sufficiently defrost and do their work.

Dook · 2005-03-26 13:27:33

1. A simple increase in air pressure will push the CO2 ice to gas. It's current freezing point is higher than it is on Earth because the air pressure is less.
2. The Dumping of Coal into the planetary atmosphere to burn up and produce the various greenhouse gasses is designed to fill the gap between what is there, what is yet needed, and where it will need to be if we are to produce even the ruddiest of crops from that little dust ball of a planet.
3. The use of Coal to produce Greenhouse Gasses allows us to Reside on the Planet without a big de-orbiting moon killing everyone and allows us to survey and monitor current life on Mars without humans being that which causes it's demise.
4. There is no coal, or oil on the planet Mars. That means that after terraforming, Sugarcane will be the most important crop on Mars (Sugarcane will allow us to reduce and control Greenhouse gasses). The majority of which will be used to produce Methanol to power Martian Industry. Despite dreams of a nuclear reactor in every Martian house.

A few nuclear reactors would do the job of thousands of tons of coal. The necessary elements to make greenhouse gasses on mars are already there, we just need the energy.

srmeaney · 2005-03-26 21:09:23

A few nuclear reactors would do the job of thousands of tons of coal. The necessary elements to make greenhouse gasses on mars are already there, we just need the energy.

Coal doesn't go critical a mile from your habitat the way a nuclear reactor does.
And that is a Billion Tonnes over a thousand years. Terraforming needs alone require 30 tonne per launch * 100 launches per day * 360 day per year * 1000 years * 1.0 accuracy.
This is using "off the shelf" Technology we have. Not some massive nuke powered orion project.

I tell you, text alone is such a language limit. If I could post images from C: This interaction would step to a whole new level of understanding.

srmeaney · 2005-03-26 21:28:57

Asteroids will not be used because the risk of destroying the only life on Mars is to great.

Dook · 2005-03-27 08:06:44

Nuclear is the only significant power source available to a terraforming crew on mars. Nuclear accidents are extremely rare. We've had two in the last 45 years.

Solar has benefits as a limited or emergency power source but still it would be preferred over an earth based energy source.

Shipping coal to mars is ridiculous. We could/would never choose that over nuclear.

And what do you mean by "the only life on mars?" Do you have pictures of that too on your C:?

MarsDog · 2005-03-27 08:29:01

The necessary elements to make greenhouse gasses on mars are already there, we just need the energy.

Since the energy is the limiting factor, it has to be conserved.
Caves and very well insulated greenhouses is all we will have in this century.

But that is not all that bad. Caves will protect from radiation, and the dangers from supernova explosions.

srmeaney · 2005-03-27 09:40:02

Shipping coal to mars is ridiculous. We could/would never choose that over nuclear.

We are not taking coal to Mars to burn in coal fire power stations.
Coal is for the purpose of orbital dumping. This is terraforming. Even if we did choose it over nuclear, It would meet only part of the energy needs of a colonization program.
Coal is singularly a source of greenhouse gasses and the most efficient method of deployment is dumping coal into the Mars Atmosphere.

And what do you mean by "the only life on mars?" Do you have pictures of that too on your C:?

If someone drops a moon on a significantly unique martian bacteria, I'm holding Dook responsible.

First law: if it can go wrong, it will. What are the odds that a de-orbited moon will kill the only significant life form on Mars? Based on the previous track reccord of the human race, Very high.

Dook · 2005-03-27 11:20:38

How is dumping coal into the martian atmosphere terraforming? Burning coal produces carbon dioxide but there is no oxygen in the martian atmosphere. Having it 'burn up' by re-entry heat is not necessarily the same thing. I don't know that it would turn into CO2 and even if it did the idea is still impossible.

Orbiting mirrors combined with nuclear powered super greenhouse gas factories and maybe some other process (heat absorbing matter spread over the ice?) would be much less trouble. Carbon Dioxide is a poor greenhouse gas when compared to the super greenhouse gasses like sulfur hexaflouride.

And again, there is no colonization program and there won't be until AFTER mars is terraformed.

You asked, "What are the odds that a de-orbited moon will kill the only significant life form on mars? Based on the previous track reccord of the human race, Very high.

Hmm, really? When has the human race ever de-orbited a moon before?

Marsdog: Energy won't be the limiting factor for a nuclear powered super greenhouse gas factory, finding significant deposits of sulfur, flouride, and other elements and taking them to the factory will be.

chat · 2005-03-27 16:10:48

Dook,

Sulphur and a host of other volcanic elements will be inside the extinct volcano Olympus mons.

Probably quite close to the surface.

Every element we need for a teraform will be in the frozen magma, o2, h20, co2, sulphur,nitrogen, uranium, silver, gold, iron, etc.
All just waiting there for us to make super greenhouse gasses from, and a nice radiation shielded place for the initial colony that starts the teraform.
With little to no help from us earthlings other than the initial setup.

I'm amassed no one has thought about Olympus mons more, and its assured store of the things we need to teraform mars.

Dook · 2005-03-27 18:36:07

I didn't necessarily disagree with the idea of making Olympus Mons an underground habitat. I think there is a great deal of surveying that needs to be done by humans long before we ever tried such a thing and even so I would bet that domes prove to be a much more attractive option.

I certainly disagree with hauling tons and tons of coal from the earth to mars.

It seems to me that we need some kind of magical machine that can separate elements in mars regolith. Sulfur in one pile, flouride in another, nitric oxides over here and metals over there. I don't know how it would work, maybe use centrifuges? Water? Magnets?

srmeaney · 2005-03-27 22:31:57

If we can find an alternative to the orbital dumping of coal into the Mars atmosphere, great. There is a ten thousand million billion slashed from the Commonwealth Colonization Budget that could be directed towards Colonist infrastructure. But Mars needs the Greenhouse Gasses. Mars needs something that it doesn't have. Mars will always need something it doesn't have.

Olympus Mons needs to be surveyed. That is why we put the first team down in the Crater and have them put up a drilling rig to take very deep core samples. If the stability is good, then we mine. Olympus Mons becomes the main focal point of Human activity on Mars. The rest of it will involve survey teams living out of Mobile Habitats. Olympus Mons will have a population of One million people. And that population will reflect Earth population ratios (whether the superpowers like it or not).

RobS · 2005-03-28 00:25:47

srmeaney, I have no idea what you are talking about with coal. If you dump coal into the Martian atmosphere, it would heat up, the carbon would vaporize, then it would cool and recondense as carbon black and the particles would gradually drift to the surface. Are you proposing to blacken Mars with carbon dust? That would heat it up marginally because the percent of light falling on Mars and being absorbed would increase. But Mars already absorbs most of it; the planet's albedo is pretty low (it isn't very reflective). So that doesn't help much, and besides, it makes a mess of Mars.

The coal won't become carbon dioxide because the Martian atmosphere doesn't have oxygen to burn it.

And considering the cost of doing this, no one in their right mind would approve such a project.

As for Olympus Mons becoming a city of million people, we have no idea where to find anything on Mars yet, so isn't it premature deciding where a city will go? I'd chose a volcano on the equator where one could put down a tether, or a volcano that has geothermal heat (like Hecates Tholus probably does).

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2005-03-28 06:27:29

Student's project out of this world:Matthew Draper enters science fairs with his research on ways life can be sustained on Mars.

"Mars does not have a magnetic field and has a low gravitational field," he said. "If we could make an atmosphere instantaneously that was just like ours, it would float off and evaporate into space in about 10 years."

chat · 2005-03-28 06:29:48

RobS,

If i was going to set up home on mars without thinking about teraforming i would pick the Martian Canyon.
Warmer, thicker atmosphere and more radiation protection.

Olympus mons is simply a good place for a teraforming colony, and sure to be a much worse selection for the colony due to the altitude of the volcano.
Good altitude for releasing super greenhouse gasses though.

Very true about us knowing little about the geology of mars, anywhere could turn out to be a great place to set up home or to start teraforming.

The volcano idea sounds good as a colony location, or at minimum within close proximity to an extinct volcano.
They are sure to be a great store of elements the colonist will need.

A volcano on a canyon floor on the equator sounds perfect.
wonder if one exists?

If the coal idea is to darken the surface of mars we could probably do that with the fine dust on deimos, it is expected to be many feet deep on the moon.
A giant coal ball would burn up on entry, but since the atmosphere is pretty deficient in o2 i believe the burn products leave little co2.

Earthfirst · 2005-03-28 12:35:48

Neat idea of using coal dust to darken mars but the heavy left cost form earth make it costly. Unless a space elevtor is made on earth the only known source of coal. Carbon metors would be a bettor source of carbon dust. I think that small impactors aimed at the poles would be better. The impact would stir up dust that would cover the white poles making them darker and warm up. This process could be repated every winter to cover up the new frost that forms.
My idea for adding N2 to mars is to use small ice impactors that we make are selves instead of diverting large comets to hit mars. In a sense create micro comets out of ices form outer solar system moons planets and minor bodys. For example Satern has many small ice moon low in gravity like Dione. I am sure that the ice surface have a mixture of amonia and water and many other substances. The NH3 could be mined by heating the ice up collecting the vapors and condesing them in a separtor the molecules of varies weight seperate out in cynder tank and can be collected. They use this process in oil refiners, and gas mine that seperate out O2 and N2 and traces gases here on earth.
The NH3 than can be truned into a large ball of ice by freezing it again, then covered with a protective layer of water ice. The object be square 1000 ft by 1000 ft sq about the size of a house. Thin a rail guns bult on the moon surface could easly lanch the micro comets of the moon low gravity towards Mars. Thrustors could be placed on the comet for crouse changes, all the speed of esacape velocity comes form the mass driver rail guns from the moon powered by reactors so the mass of the object is not wasted as rocket fuel. Given the low mass the micro comet will easy burn up in mars atmosphere, second the small moons have low gravity so lanching objet off them is easy. Thrid Satern has many small ice moon all which have NH3 mixed in, so many comets producing factorys could be set up on dozens of moons all throwning thousands of microcomets a day at mars. Satern, Neptune, and Uranus all have small ice moons pert for mining and lanching of NH3 microcomets. A hunderd moons being mined for NH3 could have hundered of micro comets hiting mars daily once set up. In a few years a mass equal to a large comet could easly reach mars. Also Pluto is a ggod place too for ices. Also Many of the Gas gaint and sub gaint have coulds of CH3, NH3, and other stuff that could be collected and sent to mars. N2 not realy a problem given the huge sources right door in the outer planets. My way also does not have huge comets hitting mars so the people if there will be safe, setting up these fatories in the out planets moons will encourage colonys to develop in the outer solar system. A colony on Triton or Dione could become very rich exporting ices, and could import metal from mars and the astorde belt. I think that could be a very good economy for outer planets.

Hop · 2005-03-28 17:26:43

I would use the asteroids at Jupiter-Sun L4 and L5 points (aka Trojans)

These are far enough from the sun to be ice rich.

Delta vee to send them on a Hohmann journey to Mars is 4.27 km/sec. Likely the asteroid's own resources can provide fuel and reaction mass.

When a Trojan arrives in Low Mars Orbit, it is traveling 7.6 km/sec. If Mars' atmosphere sheds 2.8 km/sec or more, the body is captured into elliptical orbit. Then each periapsis the body would again graze the atmosphere, gradually losing angular momentum Until finally the Trojan penetrates the Martian atmosphere one last time at about 3.5 km/sec.

For one body of Trojans, Hohmann windows occur each 2.24 years. But Mars could receive Trojans twice as often since there are two populations (the leading and trailing or L4 and L5). It takes a Trojan about 3.1 years to fall to Mars from it's original 5.2 AU orbit.

Hop · 2005-03-28 17:45:52

Another possibility is the outer Main belt. There is a healthy population at 3.15 AU and these also may be volatile rich.

Delta vee to send it to Mars is 3.23 km/sec. Velocity at arrival in Low Mars Orbit is 6.2 km/sec. The atmosphere would need to shed 1.4 km/sec or more to capture the asteroid to an elliptical orbit.

The synodic period is 2.83 years, but I don't think you'd need to wait that often to send asteroids Mars way since these asteroids are scattered in a ring about the sun. These take about 1.8 years to fall to Mars from their 3.15 AU orbit.

Hop · 2005-03-28 17:54:16

If I remember right, Kim Stanley Robinson terraforms his Mars with KBOs. To send bodies at 40 AU to Mars you'd need 3.4 km/sec. Velocity on reaching Low Mars Orbit is 10.5 km/sec . It would take about 47 years for a KBO to fall to Mars from a 40 A.U. orbit. Getting to KBOs would be very hard. We still haven't sent a Discovery mission to Pluto so far as I know.

srmeaney · 2005-03-29 06:52:19

srmeaney, I have no idea what you are talking about with coal.

-RobS

Coal would be used in conjunction with increased atmospheric oxygen to trigger a planet wide greenhouse response.
It would also be used to provide carbon for the manufacture of steel from smelting iron.

If i was going to set up home on mars without thinking about teraforming i would pick the Martian Canyon.
Warmer, thicker atmosphere and more radiation protection.

-chat

I considered the Canyon even to the point of colapsing the end that opens out on to the surface so it would be an enclosed valley, but I realized the Valley didn't have the radiation shielding that a colony would need. Building in the top of Olympus Mons allows us to build an underground city with a spaceport on the edge of the atmosphere.

The NH3 than can be truned into a large ball of ice by freezing it again, then covered with a protective layer of water ice. The object be square 1000 ft by 1000 ft sq about the size of a house. Thin a rail guns bult on the moon surface could easly lanch the micro comets of the moon low gravity towards Mars. Thrustors could be placed on the comet for crouse changes, all the speed of esacape velocity comes form the mass driver rail guns from the moon powered by reactors so the mass of the object is not wasted as rocket fuel. Given the low mass the micro comet will easy burn up in mars atmosphere, second the small moons have low gravity so lanching objet off them is easy.

-EarthFirst

Certainly Catapulting Ammonia Ice into the Mars Atmosphere will give it the Nitrogen, and Hydrogen but the expense and technology requirements would require a commitment of self sufficient colonies on Space stations who would be living in the Asteroid belt for the purpose of pulling out ice from amongst the Asteroids. It would be a colony in its own right simply tasked with processing ice into one large block to catapult in-system on a regular basis.

Conceivably active volcanic activity may be critical to terraforming. While taking out a colony site like olympus mons with an asteroid is a "no", it may be an option for an "active" volcano. If we can trigger volcanic activity near a polar site, we would accelerate terraforming.

There are alternatives to every possibility.

karov · 2005-03-29 10:38:46

srmeany,

I`m already sure that you just mock/ridicule at us with this 'coal' terraforming'. Please, this forum is no place to humiliate and offend the inteligence of the participants!

I think you have to appologize!!!

We have 10exp12 tonnes of mineral coal on Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal]http: … /wiki/Coal
To haul them to Mars you need > 200 000 000 000 starts ( from the back of the envelope guestimate of mine) using the existing chemical rockets like Saturn V, the Shuttle, Energia ( which again you insist to be not only possible, but the only reasonable tool). Repeat TWO HUNDRED BILLION starts using 2-3000 tonnes of liquid fuel/oxidiser each , means at least 500 TRILLIONS of tonnes of exhaust gases released within the earth atmosphere ( the atmosphere will be RADICALLY CHANGED in chemical composition), non counting the level of polution necesarry to be executed in order 200 000 000 000 rockets to be produced and the cola mined, and without to regard that 200 billion rockets would cost at least hundreds of millions each, hence your "1000 years coal dumping" will cost 20 quadrillions of $US per year only the transport costs ( couple of hundreds times more than the planetary gross product circa 2004) ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio … on_dioxide

... This "coal dumping" scenario will in no case have even infinitelimal engineering value for terraforming of Mars, but SURELY will de-terraform the Earth.
==============================================

Something else: as I showed 10exp15 kg of mineralized carbon within the Earth, that means a cube with only 7.9 km side, the size of a small comet: http://www.neofuel.com/neocomets/]http: … neocomets/ - the comets - see composition... Why to destroy the Earth to extract its scarse carbon stockpile, when we have several trillion comets in SolSys, each containing comparable amounts - in see what Hop tells you, much much easier for delivery form -- again puting asside that Mars DOESN`T need carbon, but PERHUBS (?) nitrogen!!! Carbon needs the Moon, Mercury...

srmeaney · 2005-03-29 12:31:35

To haul them to Mars you need > 200 000 000 000 starts ( from the back of the envelope guestimate of mine) using the existing chemical rockets like Saturn V, the Shuttle, Energia ( which again you insist to be not only possible, but the only reasonable tool). Repeat TWO HUNDRED BILLION starts using 2-3000 tonnes of liquid fuel/oxidiser each , means at least 500 TRILLIONS of tonnes of exhaust gases released within the earth atmosphere ( the atmosphere will be RADICALLY CHANGED in chemical composition)

Considering the fuel/oxidizer will be hydrogen/oxygen, the only thing that will be introduced to the Earth atmosphere is recycled water. Unless we go with hydrogen/ozone which is more efficient.

Carbon is critical for manufacture of steel along with the third in the steel triangle, Silicon. Unless we extract carbon from CO2 ice, import it we shall.

The problem with heavy lift is that it will never ever be sufficient.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-03-26 05:46:41

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#27 2005-03-26 05:54:14

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#28 2005-03-26 08:20:20

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#29 2005-03-26 10:25:55

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#30 2005-03-26 10:32:39

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#31 2005-03-26 13:27:33

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#32 2005-03-26 21:09:23

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#33 2005-03-26 21:28:57

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#34 2005-03-27 08:06:44

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#35 2005-03-27 08:29:01

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#36 2005-03-27 09:40:02

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#37 2005-03-27 11:20:38

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#38 2005-03-27 16:10:48

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#39 2005-03-27 18:36:07

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#40 2005-03-27 22:31:57

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#41 2005-03-28 00:25:47

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#42 2005-03-28 06:27:29

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#43 2005-03-28 06:29:48

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#44 2005-03-28 12:35:48

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#45 2005-03-28 17:26:43

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#46 2005-03-28 17:45:52

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#47 2005-03-28 17:54:16

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#48 2005-03-29 06:52:19

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#49 2005-03-29 10:38:46

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

#50 2005-03-29 12:31:35

Re: Asteroids' Contributions

Board footer