New Mars Forums

Hi,

>Let say that the "terraforming" is just an ONE WORD slang for
>modifing or constructing an environment towards full or partial
>human compatibility.

No thanx. That's not what it means.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Hi,

Apologies if I came across a bit harsh, like I said it can be very frustrating, still that's no excuse. Sorry

>MB, you come to New Mars with demands

Yeah, it did sound a bit demanding. I'm after a logical debate. Scientists like those. If you're genuinely interested in Terraforming and knowing what is really possible, then I thought you would aswell?

>that we disregard the work already done in this field

You should be utilising their work and incorporating it into your own. My point is that if you believe in something you should first prove it to yourself, instead of repeating someone else words.

>that he is "a former dentist"

Yeah, that was wrong. I take it back. Apologies.

>Martyn Fogg, Drs. Carl Sagan, Robert Zubrin, and Christopher McKay
>Do you...propose...these...scientists have...failed to notice that the
>martian gravitational field is unable to retain hydrogen?!

Failed, neglected or deliberately concealed. These people are making money off the idea that Mars can be terraformed, so they're not about to prove themselves, or allow themselves to be proved, wrong. They've captured the publics desire to colonise other worlds and the romantic fantasy of exploring space and turned it into a commercial product. Don't be mistaken, these people are making big bucks by saying "Mars can be Terraformed", they've built a career out of it. Surely, your parents told you "never trust a salesman".

If they had bothered to check, or even do, the figures they would have realised that Hydrogen escape will be an issue, even if only for the amateurs that followed them. They would have highlighted the issue or left it unresolved. But they can't make money from uncertainty so they ignore it, or deflect attention with a "cold trap". If you try to discuss the issue with them and they get aggressive then you know, they know, they're wrong. I have, so I know.

BTW: I don't make money from discussing these issues. I'm genuinely interested in knowing what is realistically possible.

>might we be permitted to ask what qualifications you hold

Bachelor of Science (major in Tissue Culture, Advanced Biochemistry, Microbiology, Molecular Biology) and a member of MENSA at 19, with 99% pass. I'm only 28 and I keep pretty busy, so I don't have my Masters or PhD yet. May I know your qualifications?

>Earth's escape velocity is 11200 m/s.

Did you include the exobase height in that calculation?
What equation did you use to calculate the exospheric temperature? or did you use someone elses estimate?

>I don't know where you got the impression that PFCs are somehow
>poisonous

I'll recheck my notes.

Back to what I originally wanted to discuss...

Venus has 1.0774x10^19 Kg of N2 and 3.3922x10^20 Kg of O2 from CO2, but it only needs 4.0314x10^18 Kg of N2 and 1.2238x10^18 Kg of O2 to form one standard atmosphere. So it has 6.7426x10^18 Kg of N2 and 3.38x10^20 Kg of O2 that needs to be removed. Not including N2 for fixation and O2 for water.
Mars requires 3.0088x10^18 Kg of N2 and 9.1342x10^17 Kg of O2 to form one standard atmosphere. More than enough is available from Venus. So from the perspective of material resources, it would make more sense to terraform Venus before Caeliforming Mars.

Adding a standard atmosphere to Mars will insulate the planet and raise temperatures. The solid CO2 on Mars will vapourise with increasing temperature and the atmosphere will increase above one standard atmosphere. The CO2 can then be removed and stored away in a pure form.
You might expect Mars to need a larger atmospheric mass because it has a lower gravity, but don't forget it has a much smaller surface area to spread over.

The best way to terraform Venus, that I can find so far, is to increase it's albedo or block sunlight from reaching the atmosphere. The heat will radiate from the dark side of Venus cooling the planet. The temperature only needs to drop below 157C (roughly). At this temperature the CO2 can be electrically combined with imported Hydrogen to form Oxalic acid which can be stored as a liquid.

I'm also considering high heat-capacity compounds, cooled to near absolute zero, being dropped into the atmosphere. This would reduce the temperature even further and buffer against any potential temperature rise later on. I'm still researching this idea.

It would be interesting to see if a floating city could be created on Earth. Even if it's only 1 metre off the ground.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Hi,

Sorry for the cross-post.

I officially introduce the word "Caeliforming" (K-AY-LEE-forming) into the discussion. Caeliforming, translated from latin is "to create and support the sky".

Caeliforming means: to create and maintain an earth-like atmosphere (air pressure, temperature, constituents), to make a planet/moon habitable for humans.

Caeliforming can be incorporated into the Terraforming process or remain separate from it.

Significant differences between Caeliforming and Terraforming are:
*Caeliforming is modifying an atmosphere to be earth-like, while Terraforming is modifying an entire planet (including the atmosphere) to support an earth-like, terrestrial (surface) ecosystem.
*A terraformed mass has an earth-like gravity and can retain Hydrogen in it's atmosphere over a geological period.
*A terraformed mass requires little or no external atmospheric maintenance over a geological period.

Mars can easily be Caeliformed, but not Terraformed.
On a caeliformed Mars you can walk around without a face mask, but gravity would still be very low, people would live underground and H20 oceans would dry up over geological periods. The air would be fairly dry and water would be a valuable commodity.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Hi,

>Terraforming may not be exactly making planets copies of Earth

That's what "Terraforming" means.

>but maing them habitable

There is a significant difference between "habitable" and "terraformed". We need to find an analogous word to describe the process leading to a "habitable" planet/moon. In all fairness I will crunch the numbers and see what is required to make Mars "Habitable"

>The colder moons have already plenty of water - frozen.

The moons lack an atmosphere, so when you melt the water, it will vapourise, then photodissociate and escape into space.

>Titan is too cold

You're talking about Titan (cold) before it's terraformed. I'm talking about what will happen if you attempt to terraform it, and gravity plays a key role in what will happen.

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Hi,

>What do you have to say about the cloudcity concept

The best of the ideas so far, but very risky. How windy is it in the upper atmosphere?
A strong gust of wind or rising CO2 thermal could flip, or roll a cloud city so it would have to be tethered or have a counter weight far below. Also, a short downflow could briefly throw it into the lower, denser atmosphere and crust it, so the floaters would have to be made of a strong material, resistant to warping at high-temperatures, resistant to sulfuric acid, but not to heavy as to drag the whole thing to the surface. Finding the right material might be a problem. Nitrogen and Helium would be the best combination for the floaters, as Oxygen is highly flammable. Are there jet-streams in the upper atmosphere of venus? Being hit by a jet-stream would probably tear a cloud-city apart. I'd also be worried about cosmic radiation, being in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen would not be a problem as the technology already exists to ionise CO2 into O2 and Carbon (at low pressures). The excess Carbon could be packaged (so as to not combust with the build up of O2 later) and dropped to the surface like garbage. Water might be an issue as the planet has a serious shortage of Hydrogen.

I've also considered the idea of small, low density spheres that float at a height of 3 earth-standard atmospheres. They would be highly-reflective (albedo >0.9) and immune from sulfuric acid, perhaps with a thin plastic coating. They would be used to cool the planet, which should also reduce the wind speed. The CO2 on Venus will never solidify, the pressure is just way to high. So eventually the CO2 will have to be removed or converted. Even with all the CO2 gone there will still be a Nitrogen atmosphere 2.4 times that of Earth, so mountain top living will be the go for a while.

If a cloud city will work on Venus, then why has it not already been tried on Earth, even as an experiment?

Michael
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Hi,

>*'terraformation:' why are you so irritated by the term being used
>'uncorrect?'

Debate. I want people to logically and scientifically argue the possibilities of terraforming. I want to know what is and isn't realistically possible. If someone has a point they should be willing to debate the issue and prove their point. If someone can't prove their point without quoting sci-fi novels or if they're just reiterating someone elses ideas then don't bother, it's all been said before. Equally don't try to prove a point by saying "god will make it happen", this is not the domain to air religious views.

If you believe Mars can be terraformed then prove it, with your own proof, in your own words. When someone disagrees with you, argue the point, don't just say "nah you're wrong" or "Kim Stanley Robinson said so".

It's very irritating, very frustrating, when someone can't argue a point and so they redefine words and play with semantics to push their point across, even though they know they could be wrong. Use the proper meaning of words and the correct nomenclature.

>did you consider the possibility of 'constant' boosting the atmosphere

Yes. We don't do that now with earth, so to do that to another planet would not be earth-like, which is the point of terraforming. The need to constantly prop up a planets atmopshere is proof enough the system has failed.

>But how fast does Mars, Titan etc. lose it's H?

How fast they loose Hydrogen NOW is not the issue. How fast they WILL loose Hydrogen, if you try to terraform them, is. With low gravity, the answer is: quickly. I'd like to argue this point further with figures but I am still putting an accurate model together. I'll respond again when I have some figures for you.

>"When a scientist says something is impossible, he's very probably
>wrong"
I don't believe I have ever used the word impossible (if I have, let me know). I've said it can't. The amount of additional mass that will need to be added to Mars for it to hold Hydrogen is greater than Mars itself. Hence, the final product can't be called "Mars" as the name of the larger mass is dominant. Nomenclature aside, you can't bury the surface of Mars under 640km of solid iron and still call it "Mars". "Mars" is the name of the current planetary mass, not an orbit.

>it appears you're telling us that Earth only has water at its surface
>because its gravitational acceleration

That's a generalised summation but not exactly what I said.

>Earth can't even retain helium-4 with its gravitational field

I disagree. Please prove it. Use equations if you need to.

>if gravity is the only criterion

It's not, you should read my webpage more carefully.

>implying that Mars can never be like Earth because Earth can hold on
>to hydrogen, while Mars can't, is simply not true.

I wasn't implying, it was a statement, it can't. If you think otherwise please prove it, don't just say "is simply not true".

MB1
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Hi,

If we can't walk around naked afterwards (assuming you'd want to) then it's not terraforming. Terraforming is making a planet like earth, not making a planet habitable in presure-suits.

http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Michael

Hi,

Titan can't be terraformed. Check out my list at:

http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/esc … scape.html

from my website:
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Michael

Hi,

Although the idea sounds great and the night sky would be awesome, none of the Jovian, Saturian, Uranian or Neptunian moons can be terraformed. Check out my list at:

http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/esc … scape.html

from my website:
http://www.geocities.com/alt_cosmos/ind … index.html

Michael