New Mars Forums

qraal,

Hey interesting idea on how to move Ceres.
How about a steam rocket at Ceres ?.
That is a pretty low tech power small option.

I was picturing all the steps you would need to get Ceres to Mars orbit.
Not impossible to do, but i think you are right about it being a long term project.

I think the last little bit as we get real close to Mars would make for two wobbly places as the gravity starts to react on each other unevenly.

We might even be able to use that to move Mars and Ceres towards the sun a bit more.

The view from Mars would be pretty interesting as Ceres approaches.

Antius,

Micro gravity is now pretty well documented to the effects it causes.
I think right around 18 months is the serious problem point for humans in near 0g.
Beyond that point humans returning are a little like jello.

On the moon at 1/6th G or Mars at 1/3rd G we just don't have any idea what that does to a human body.
We might encounter a totally different set of problems at partial G.
Almost a guarantee that human biological systems that rely on gravity that get partial returns are going to be pretty mixed up.

I also doubt that staying on Mars for 18 months would be a death sentence, overstated a bit.
But we might find that partial gravity is much worse than 0g on a human body.
Or we might find that partial gravity just extends the stay limit much further than 0G.

We can also compensate a bit on the Moon or Mars with 8 hr exploration walks that require lots of heavy equipment moving in heavy space suits.
Muscle and bone loss should be kept to a minimum doing that.

Interesting that it's such an overlooked issue with going to Mars.
Guess we will get some answers when people are on the moon for extended stays.
Partial G really has a potential to make a human body have all sorts of hormones and glands doing odd things, brain chemistry, cell chemistry  etc.

Antius,

Oh i agree that most of the places in the solar system that could be altered to suit us would take such an effort and cost to do that they probably will never be done.
And what is the resulting world after many thousands of years of effort?
Probably like you say a poorly lit and cold place like Siberia in winter.
Not to many people vacationing in Siberia in winter. LOL

Most of those worlds just a few meters under ground and it's a completely different way to set up a colony.

Even on Mars it makes quite a bit of sense to just select a crater and build what you want inside it.
Then bury the entire thing in a few meters of soil.
Easy warming, radiation protection, internal pressure problems are resolved just doing that.
Growing plants can be a totally indoor thing with power from solar panels on the surface or a small nuclear reactor on the surface.

I have a feeling that is how mankind will slowly move to the places in the solar system.

The sheer efforts in trying to terra form even Mars the easiest candidate are very daunting.
Just warming Mars is an effort beyond anything mankind has done, after that is complete bringing up the nitrogen content so the gas balance can be non lethal.
Waiting a few 10,000s of thousands of years for cyanobacteria to convert C02 into oxygen so the C02 and oxygen levels are safe for land life, then a few more 1,000s of thousands of years for land life to cover Mars so it's safe for animal life.

Seems like such a big effort when a few holes in the ground produce the same results on a small scale.

Some day someone might come up with an anti gravity machine that makes terra forming a much more simple procedure.
That machine would also make visiting other stars a much more simple procedure, so maybe we will never terra form anything.
Or maybe just nothing in our solar system.

Cyanobacteria will grow at 1/9 light levels, they do in the water column on Earth.
Since the surface of Ceres above 0c would be water we would select it.
Not much point in looking at surface plant endurance for a place that won't have a surface.

Hacking a bit at the C02 math.
Ceres being a mean temperature of -100°C.
With 1 bar of C02 at Ceres adding around 70c, we end up with a world somewhere around -30c.

A mix of super greenhouse gasses or methane in the atmosphere and it's not beyond the realm of being a world above 0c.

As we get further out in the solar system the numbers become more dismal for C02.
Moons around Jupiter will require 2 or 3 bars of C02 to have a hope of being a 0c place.
Around Saturn more like 10 bars of C02.

Ceres and Mars might be the only places a C02 atmosphere is useful.
My guess is that Mars is the only useful place to try and have a 1 bar C02 atmosphere, Ceres is a big effort for a small place.

My guess as a minimum bearable temperature for humans is around -70c since Eskimo's go indoors at those temperatures.
We could probable add another -30c to that with heated suits, that puts us at around -100 as a minimum bearable temperature for both men and machines on a moon or planet surface.

Terraformer,
jumpboy11j,

No real reason to have 1 bar on Ceres.
1 bar is nice for creating easy to assemble domes with earth like pressures indoors, but no other real reason for 1 bar.

I think it's more of a question of 1 bar of what will keep Ceres warm.?
Or 650mb of what will keep Ceres warm?

Another good question is what do us humans think of as a minimum temperature that is bearable on the surface with just warm clothing and oxygen equipment.?

Would 650mb of C02 keep Ceres warm or 1 bar or 2 bars?
We could make that on Ceres or most of the moons maybe.

Collecting earthlike light for domes is rather simple.
Mylar surrounding the dome will capture earthlike amounts of light on almost any moon or planet.
The further away from the sun the more mylar you need for each dome.

If we are separating h20 ice to create a c02 atmosphere,  then we have a pure source of hydrogen to heat the domes and power everything as a byproduct.

It's not really terra forming, more like terra reordering, each place with it's own specific needs that waste products make it a nicer place over time.

It does open lots of territory in the solar system to start on a small scale and expand.

Hi RickSmith,

I would just like to thank you very much for doing a lot of the nuts and bolts math of this idea.

It seemed like every time i tried it was a giant bear to try and tame.
Each little change made the last guess a total change.

The ideas can come pretty quick for a easy solution to making Mars a more Earth like place.
But when you get into the math it starts to change a bit.

Very interesting breakdown of all the needs of the idea and very well nutted out Rick.

Now your point of aluminum tubes with carbon dust replacing the carbon dust as the impact items is an interesting one.

We probably wouldn't have to search to far in the asteroid belt to find a good candidate asteroid for that.
I think your correct though that the energy costs to get it out of any asteroid will be pretty hefty.

Small selected untouched asteroid dropping on the poles sounds better and better.
Much easier anyway  

Thanks again Rick  *tipping Hat*

Hi Terraformer,

I probably didn't word it very well in my posts.

Carbon is more easily reacted with oxygen than hydrogen is.
Carbon and oxygen are not as stable as hydrogen and oxygen.

The chemistry of a cooler Venus would be ideal once it makes water, since water would sink in the atmosphere away from the UV.

Dumping hydrogen on a cooler Venus wont be an immediate reaction, UV would play a big role in stripping C and allowing hydrogen to bond.
Maybe only 10% of what you dump will have enough energy for immediate reactions, the other 90% will take its time with help from UV in the upper atmosphere.

The lack of a strong magnetic field on Venus is also going to be a problem for hydrogen losses to space.
On a cooler Venus they won't be as bad since hydrogen will bond and sink away from the UV zone, but we can still expect Venus to loose 10-20% of any hydrogen we import before it gets reacted with.

The same carbon stripping chemistry happens right now on Venus in the upper atmosphere, then Carbon simply bonds again with any free oxygen.
Free hydrogen on Venus also creates water that has a short life as it sinks, right now the Venus chemistry is almost like a hydrogen filter that eventually looses it to space.

Antius,

Seems like a good probability that real big earths around the universe are going to be pretty warm places.

Once we start moving them further out from the host star to accommodate the extra internal heat and thicker atmospheres.
The more likely small fluctuations in sunlight amounts will have bigger effects on any life trying to grow on them.
Guess at some point the really big earths will be similar to the surface of the moon Io.

Earth might turn out to be a very unusual just so place, rare even in astronomical terms.
A little to big in a warm location and its a warming runaway like Venus.
To small and it looses its gas to space like Mars.
A few times Earth size and it has to be so far from the star that life is a very slow process with little sunlight energy.
Many times Earth and internal heat becomes a problem.

Location location and star type a big factor in this mix also.
Not much room to move Earth around in our solar system before we get an ice block or overheating problem.

Terraformer,

Space elevator oh carbon is a great use for a bunch of the carbon, nice way to get more carbon and co2 off planet also.

I'm no planetary chemical engineer in any sense of the word.
I think with hydrogen and co2 you get water, free carbon and heat from the reaction.

Some c02 would immediately be converted to water and free C from just the impact with the atmosphere, most of the rest from UV processes in the upper atmosphere.

Only reason we can't do this to the current hot Venus is the h20 quickly sinks and is broken back into 0xygen and h2 as the temperature increases as you get closer to the surface.
Heated h2 is lost to space and the free oxygen consumed by free carbon.
Free carbon is cycled around the atmosphere until it finds free oxygen and become c02.
Even if we had 25 bars of hydrogen we could deliver to Venus, the Last thing the current Venus needs is heat from the water creation reaction, and super boiled steam in mass quantity that is far worse than c02 as a greenhouse gas.
Think that is how it got the way it is

A cooled Venus is a totally different ball game though, when C makes it to the surface and water builds in the lower cloud banks waiting for conditions for the first titanic rains.

On a surface Venus just below 110c i believe moisture in the clouds would start to fall as rain for a few hundred year first rain.

cIclops,

All depends on the exact impact size/speed/angle.
I can't imagine an impact that many big pieces get to Earth other than a very shallow almost miss Moon sort of hit.

Even a direct thumping hit on the moon with a 50km comet would probably kick up enough dust and debris in all sorts of orbits to alter Earth sunlight for ages though.
Any of the debris from the impact on the moon that doesn't have big escape speeds will settle into sloppy long term orbits around earth.

Maybe 25% returns to the moon, 50% is high enough speed material to leave Earth/moon gravity totally, 1% makes it to earth pretty quick and the rest stays in sloppy Earth orbits.

I think with a comet as big as 50km we would want the moon to take the hit no matter what the outcome, 50km on Earth would be a global killer 100% chance.
A 1km or smaller comet and we might not want the moon to take the hit.

Terraformer,

That is the exact scenario i see for a decent sized impact with the moon.
Earth probably wouldn't need a second magnetic field produced from the dust and the lowered light levels.
Both of those could be very disturbing to all life on Earth.

Having a ring sure would be a pretty thing to look at though

Midoshi,

We have some pretty incompetent leaders here on earth, no reason to believe that trait wont be exported to Mars

Great fun to think about what Mars and life will need both together to be happy places.

Seems to me most of the serious problems go away with nitrogen import, but the penalties to do that are pretty big.

Good thing is we really are not rushed to bring in nitrogen.
We can do that over thousands of years.
We still have a Mars on the right path with life already started in the water as soon as we warm it.
So for the first 5,000 - 10,000 years we live indoors and go outdoors with oxygen masks.
Not such a giant penalty when the Martians contemplate the final day they put away the masks for good.

Fiddling with small changes to amounts of oxygen, c02 and nitrogen is what those Martians will be doing when Mars gets close to perfect to start planting the land.

Thanks for the link on animal c02 adaptability, going to read that right now.