Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

Calliban · 2021-10-18 09:58:18

Void, probably correct regarding water vapour. This is an area where we should make use of natural energy flows to the greatest extent possible. Otherwise, the resource requirements get huge. Water vapour provides its own atmospheric greenhouse effect as well. One option for warming the surface would be to produce millions of hemispherical frames, with a thin UV resistant plastic wrap covering the frames. These could be placed on the ground and weighted down at the corners with small rocks. The apex of the domes would contain a small hole, allowing evaporated water vapour to escape.

Plastic wrap can be produced with a thickness of 10 micrometers. On this basis, a dome 1m in diameter, would require about 1.5 grams of polymer. To cover 10 million square km (7% of the planet) would require about 15 billion tonnes of material. It sounds achievable for a highly populated industrial society.

Zubrin mentioned something similar in the Case for Mars as a water harvesting method. Maybe this would be of use to SpaceNut's plan for water harvesting in support of propellant production?

Last edited by Calliban (2021-10-18 10:19:17)

Void · 2021-10-18 10:17:00

Calliban,

Anything of that nature, which can be accomplished can be of interest.

They may or may not work near the poles, per the CO2 condensates. If yes then good for that, otherwise fine for the temperate zones.

I am about to suggest a progression.

-Mars Direct.
-City.
-Orbital assets.
-Melt ring seas around both polar deposits and also Korolev.

I will get back.

Done.

Void · 2021-10-18 10:57:52

It's nothing that special, just that I think that with the addition of energy from
orbit, a short cycle biosphere could be established. Microwave and solar energy
being impinged on the walls of the polar ice caps, an internal aquifer might be
established, that to flow down to pool at the base(s).

And those pools, to also recieve additional energy from orbit. The thing is that
over time, evaporation from the ice would more or less return to the caps and could
be melted yet again.

So, seas to be formed. Ideally this would also include vaporizing the CO2 ice.
And I would not object to fission reactors being put into the pools. Also with
that to push chemicals useful into the waters.

If it later makes sense to put a covering over these pools, then it could be done.

I more or less believe you try different things and see which ones want to grow.

I don't particularly like mandating in a relegious way a chosen method.

I really like the idea of small seas on the edges of ice masses on Mars, where
little by little this living area might expand.

But Mars direct starts it I think.

Done.

Void · 2021-10-21 10:21:54

OK, this is of interest to me for this topic, of course the other members might put it elsewhere for their reasons. I am going to review it again today before I comment for this post.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Water+on+ … bedca99488

The one by James Secosky:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Wa … &FORM=VIRE

I like that he talks about ancient lakes, and his characterizations of ice thought to exist, and it's uncertainties as well.

Of course I intend to want to see created bodies of water on Mars, almost always
covered in ice and then also likely with a protective mechanical surface of some kind. Possibly only dirt, but perhaps manufactured surfaces as well in many cases.

I guess I expect that first activities will be in the Mid Latitudes, and then to expand to orbit, and from orbit to expand to very cold icy places. Korolev and the two poles are candidates for that.

For these, I currently anticipate a combination of native solar, orbital solar projection to ground, microwave projection to ground, and fission nuclear to be
methods for starting up a biosphere on Mars. We might also include Elon Musk's
nuclear flash bombs as well.

Greenland ice aquifers do apparently exist. And also lakes.

Query: "Greenland ice aquifers"

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/mod … -ice-sheet

So the difference between the Greenland ice and that of Mars, in part, energy.

I like adding orbital assets to the whole concept of "Occupying Mars", asap, as
those assets could give 1 g environments, refuge from global dust storms, and access to Phobos, Deimos, and asteroids. It should not be that hard to bring Hydrogen or water up from the surface of Mars.

Orbital energy assets could include Microwave power stations, and reflective mirrors, and perhaps Elon Musk's flash bombs.

Microwaves could at times send energy to rectenna's in places where it is desired.
As for the major ice deposits, they are expected to be dusty.

It is considered possible that dusty ice could perhaps have little melt spots in them. If that were true, the the microwaves would pass through ice phase water, and likely deposit energy into those liquid water pockets. Otherwise, I expect that
the microwaves might also heat up the dust.

As for reflective mirrors, those might be tuned for the wavelengths they might deliver. One desire it to melt more ice, the other is to foster photosynthesis.

For the aquifers, I guess we only want energy deep in the ice, not so much on the surface. Granted, the icecaps can sublimate, and that could also satisfy a desire to use water vapor as a greenhouse gas. I anticipate that some combination of energy projection into and onto the ice may create liquid water inside the ice and an ice seal on the outside.

The hope eventually is to have a water flow out from the bottom of the ice body, that will fill a growing lake/sea. So, the energy we send to that body of water might be different. Microwaves to keep it sufficiently liquid, and only light wavelengths that will foster photosynthesis.

However here again, if there is sublimation, then we want to try to get the vapors to go high up in the atmosphere. I saw an article that indicated that at some point in it's history Mars may have had some high altitude clouds that allowed the planet to be warmer. If we could do that then the CO2 deposits in the ice cap(s) might vaporize, and produce a greater stability for water on the surface of the planet.

Here is an article about it, I think:
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/planetary_news … arly-mars/

And then perhaps an occasional Elon Musk flash bomb to help things out.

I believe that Antarctica also has aquifers in it's ice, and of course under ice lakes, and dry valley lakes. So, of course that may be of great interest.

Starting with some cities in the mid latitudes, and then to orbit, and then to build high latitude seas, then a planetary system of lakes, all the while warming the planet within reason.

I think it would be unwise to try to go for a "Blue Mars".

I think we want a glacial Mars with some open air biological activity, but a lot of under ice biological activity.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-21 11:48:52)

Void · 2021-10-27 09:46:51

Although this is not directly Mars terraforming, I think it is very likely that
Mars terraforming will require boots on the ground and in orbit. So, I am putting
this here. I will be comfortable with criticism, but not so much rigid thinking.
I have borrowed from Robert Zubrin quite a bit, and also from members on this site.

This is worth a read, in my opinion.
https://phys.org/news/2021-10-martian-r … -mars.html

I think that it is good to consider alternatives. I cannot judge the value of this
one, but it is good for them to try something.

The "Sabatier reactors" method has become the "Holy of Hole" only thing proposed. Too
much like orthodox religion mandates. It may very well be a thing to do or even the
thing to do, but I have some notions now due to recent stimulation. I wish to express
them, they could work OK with the Sabatier method, so I am not so much in opposition of
it, but thinking up new tricks seems appropriate as we are approaching Halloween.

I cannot confirm that this will work out to be a treat, but you never know. If you
never try, (YODA), then you never DO get.

------

1) The use of SpaceX Starships, although not too....long from now there may be something
like Mini-Starships.

2) Use the 6 months/2 years, method so that in the event of an abort for entering Mars,
the crew might survive to do a free return to Earth. For that reason, the crew ship
would need to have enough consumables on board, for that to be possible. I have no idea
of what shape they might be in after 2 years, but I guess it is a chance to survive.

3) Much prior to crew launch, a starship with Kilopower is sent to the Martian surface,
and would activate the reactor, and cook up O2 and CO or even Carbon from the atmosphere
of Mars. In order to help pay for this device, it is possible that this ship might
carry probes from paying customers. Delivery from the ship to the surface would be a
problem to solve.
3b) Possibly bringing Hydrogen with it.
3c) possibly bringing Methane with it.
* For 3b and 3c, only enough to reach low Martian Orbit.
* As this device would have an activated reactor, I expect that any Oxygen and Methane
cooked up would have to be transferred to a return ship, which could possibly be a Mini-
Starship. That would help a lot.
* Of course there will have to be active cooling on ship #3 for the propellants.
* It would make sense to attempt to start up propellant production using Hydrogen in
water ice, but this method might not require success to get the crew back to Earth
from the surface of Mars.

4) A #4 ship would achieve Martian orbit by repeated atmospheric passes. It would stay
in orbit. If ship #2 landed successfully with the crew, they would have also taken
the consumables to make a 2 year free return work. I am then presuming that these
consumables would support surface activities by the crew. Ship #3 would have cooked up
lots of Oxygen, and perhaps fuels of CO and CH4, depending on the method which was used.
*Orbital Ship #4 would have additional consumables that you never had to land or lift
off of the Martian surface. These would be for the return trip. Water, food, perhaps
Oxygen. And quite likely propellants. For sure Methane, maybe also Oxygen for propellants.
The #4 would also be a "Super Probe". I am supposing that various entities might pay
money to put their experiments and instrumentations on it. Maybe some landers as well,
small ones. And the investigations would of course involve the proposed base, but also
much of Mars, and Phobos and Deimos. So, it is possible that with ride share SpaceX
would be able to partially finance this ship.

* When the return ship went to Martian orbit, it would take on new supplies and propellants
from #4. Possibly the Super probe would just give it a boost to Earth. Options.....
* Probably #4 should be solar powered, with active cooling.
* I understand that aerobraking to Martian orbit will be very tricky as the atmosphere
swells and shrinks.

------

As for the return ship, perhaps it would be a full Starship per SpaceX, or a Mini-Starship
from some other company. Obviously the Mini would only need much less propellants, on
the ground to Martian orbit, and from Martian orbit to Earth.

I expect that in addition to the ships I have mentioned above, there will be several supply
ships with materials also sent to the surface of Mars. Probably including methods to
manufacture propellants.

------

I know that some people will dislike the need to refill propellants and consumables in
Martian orbit, but what you risk with complications, may be to get rewards as per abilities.

After all this is not so different than the Apollo, with LEM and Command Modules. Except,
if all goes well you do Mars direct for the crew, and then of course orbital preparations
for return.

I feel it is good to try YODA.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-27 09:51:28)

tahanson43206 · 2021-10-27 13:57:15

For Void re #56

Thank you for finding and showing the link to the work by students and researchers in Georgia, USA.

I noted a possible error... the article was written (no doubt) by a reporter, so an error can be understood as inevitable.

The report seems to think that Dr. Zubrin was proposing to send Methane to Mars, but (of course) the actual material was Hydrogen.

Beyond that, I note that Louis should be pleased, because the process described consumes solar power instead of nuclear fission power.

(th)

Void · 2021-10-27 17:38:14

Well, (th), thanks for showing up.

Yes that article seems odd in some ways. When they say it would take 8 Billion
dollars to send the fly back propellants to Mars, I am wondering if that is with the SLS or Starship? There would be a big difference I expect.

I included the article mostly to show that technology is still changing, and options
also changing. It does not pay to lock into something and loose flexibility.

There are potentially at least 3 things that could show up before sending humans to Mars. 1) Mini-Starship, 2) Kilopower, 3) Nuclear boosters.

Any of these could change planning.

1) Things that might resemble Mini-Starship could show up from at least two companies at this time. According to Dr. Robert Zubrin, that device would
make the task of return propellants much more solvable.

3) A nuclear Booster of course could bump Starship on it's way to Mars, conserving
propellants.

2) I am very interested in Kilopower. I think it is near. It is the size of a refrigerator, and could produce 10 kw, I believe. You might want several.

I know that Louis will not tune into this much, but the fact is that if you could
land a Starship with some of these on board, and could automatically activate them, then as they have a life of 10-12 years, you then have a robot that can
churn out Oxygen and CO liquids into it's tanks, possibly for that duration of time.

Getting near it to extract propellants could be a problem, but the propellants will
give some shielding, and if the reactors are on top distance helps. Also you could
have a truck with ice shielding around needed parts.

Possibly it could be robotic as well and so no humans in it.

This automation could be turned on before humans ever left the Earth, and confirmed to run. Solar panels? Not so much. So at some desired point, ignoring
the CO, you could have 79% of your propellants manufactured for the return trip
before a human stepped foot on Mars.

I have to stop for a while, my computer is bogging down again

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike delivered solar pannels you don't have to unpack, set foundations, and wire
things up.

You have a ship full of LOX and Liquid CO, with an electric system active. One that
might do work for 10-12 years. You might make a shielded work room at it's base and
use electric power tools, or you might run a power line to a more remote facility.

CO is not a great fuel, but it is a fuel for carts and some tools.

------

A question can arise? Why not bring Hydrogen, if you are so sure that you don't know
if you can extract sufficient water? SpaceX is going to send a number of cargo ships,
can't Hydrogen be cargo? Actually I hope to do better than that, but I want to ask the
question.

As I said in my provious post, I also have the question: "If you can land Cargo Ships
on Mars robotically, why can't you put one or two in orbit of Mars? I have already
suggested multiple skims of the Martian atmosphere for these. I know that Mars direct
has it's utility, but do you really want to land all the consumables for the return
trip on Mars, and manufacture propellants to lift it to orbit again?

Food is pretty much one time, except for some dogs. We won't have dogs yet.
Water, I know you can recycle, but only about 90% I think.
Oxygen??? Well you might bring it up from Mars, or you might have stored it on the orbital
ships. I don't know at this time which makes sense. If you bring it up, then you have to
manufacture propellants for that.

And now, what about Hydrogen or Methane??? I would not suggest Hydrogen on the orbital
ships, too hard to keep cool, and then you would have to bring up CO and cook Methane.
Probably not the way to go. Instead have the Methane you need to leave Martian orbit for
Earth, and land on Earth.

So for the surface Nuclear Starship, you have choices of mining ice, to get Hydrogen, but
a lesser amount. You already made your O2 and CO, so you need less electrical power to
finish the job of making propellants to lift to orbit.

Or you could have just brought Hydrogen or Methane. Costly, but just more cargo. SpaceX
hopes to make 1000 ~Starships. If you can enhance safety by using 10 at the start instead
of 6, maybe that is worth it. Particularly if other entities pay parts of the bills.

I have already suggested ride shares for the orbital ship(s), and perhaps the nuclear surface
starship(s).

In the case of the Orbital ones perhaps 20 tons??? could be devoted to such experiments.

Perhaps automated collections from the Moons of Mars???

Radar of strength to examine Mars and the Moons.

Anyway, we are free to consider or reject.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-27 18:16:37)

Void · 2021-10-28 13:23:43

Quote:

A Mars Colony Could be a Hydrogen Factory, Providing Propellant for the Inner Solar System

https://www.universetoday.com/153121/a- … irst%20one.

I don't strongly object to the notion. Of course we think that the Moon and Mercury have some water, but maybe it would
be preferred to use that more on the surfaces of those objects.

I suppose if you consider the possible use of Skyhooks, with other methods, it might be OK. It would then
be an export from Mars proper. Depending on the method to obtain it, the Oxygen could be added to the atmosphere of
Mars.

Two methods:

1) Split the water on the Martian surface, then bring the Hydrogen up. Probably the first thing that comes to mind.

2) Bring water up, and use it in pressurized greenhouses in orbit of Mars. Then plants make O2, and Biomass. You would
likely bring a Carbon compound into the greenhouse from somewhere.

Shipping biomass that would contain Hydrocarbons might be of interest. It could be freeze dried, and so kept "Fresh"
for a time. Food, I guess would yield water after digestion, and Carbon into CO2 breathed out.

There is some reason to think that the Moon and Mercury will have CO ices though, in addition to water ice.

I should think that a Mars where many lakes had been activated on the surface, and where Hydrogen could be lifted to
orbit to react with materials from Phobos and Deimos, would be enhanced by the creation of an Ozone layer, a global
magnetic field, and an array of orbital habitats. If there were medical concerns about Martian gravity, then of course
a different synthetic gravity in orbit. Such habitats, if they are generally safe, might be attractive to people
who might like to live in them.

I would say that perhaps in a century Mars could have a pressure of perhaps 16.5 mBar as an average. That would be
intended to have an Ozone layer if possible. Some precipitation activity leading to some small snow melt streams,
could very likely lead to semi-natural ice covered lakes. So, the start of a mildly active hydrosphere.

And then I suppose Hydrogen for Nuclear Fission travel.

Done.

Void · 2021-10-30 13:52:19

This seems very good to me:
It seems to relate to my post #57 in this topic.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sp … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

SpaceX Starship can return from Mars without surface refilling
YouTube · 180,000+ views · 10/26/2021 · by Marcus House

They have done better calculations than me, of course, that is not my strength.

I would add a robotic Starship to land with Kilopower reactors. That then to automatically make O2 and CO starting just
after it's landing. So, then even without manufacturing CH4, as I said in my earlier post you would then perhaps have
a surface Starship filled with Oxygen and CO, and that would also have an onboard power grid.

So, I guess I am hoping that a Shuttle Starship could bring Oxygen up to Orbit. A method would be needed to have enough
Methane for that ship on the Martian surface. A simple method would be to land a Shuttle ship, with only enough Oxygen
to safely perch on the surface of Mars.

Of course I am trying to punch above my weight, but I would say it is not wrong to investigate different possible options.

I do think it is very risky to suppose that ISRU can be set up in high volume on the first crewed mission. I would say,
that an attempt should be made to make a pilot plant that could fuel a Mini-Starship, even if a Mini does not yet then
exist, as I anticipate that it will show up some time not too long from now, maybe a few Hohmann transfer cycles.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-30 13:52:52)

Void · 2021-10-30 17:24:51

Mini Starship(s):
The Mini Version of Starship- Terran R, "SpaceXly"

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Th … M%3DHDRSC3

And I believe that Neutron is to be able to launch humans, (Eventually). Maybe this will end up similar?
Neutron:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Th … A75D82667D

Blue Origin has "Jarvis".
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08 … 20progress.

I am very much a SpaceX fan, but I think they cannot afford to develop Starship and also Mini-Starship, so I am glad these
may show up. It will be to the benefit of space projects, I am thinking.

It is obvious that a SpaceX Maxi propellant ship could go a long way to refuel, a Mini Starship. In many cases, the Maxi,
can make a one way trip, and land on the Moon or Mars, to start a base. It may be less costly to do that then to manufacture
high grade pressurized volume, at least for a while.

But suppose, referencing the previous post's video, Starship delivered 100 people to Martian orbit, and then a mini delivered
them to the Martian surface. Well then you don't need so much propellants, to do that. That does ask the question, how
will the Maxi Starship get back to Earth, (Orbit???), (Usually).

Well, maybe there will be a propellant depot around Mars, filled by some type of Starship, and we might hope from the Martian Moons.
I don't know the calculations for that....

It seems very likely that both Phobos and Deimos will have Oxygen in their regolith, so then that is 79% of the weight of
propellants, (I think). Deimos may have Carbon. It resembles asteroids that do.

And then so you want Hydrogen. Most guesses say no water in those moons. Maybe minerals with Hydrogen. My thinking is that
even if impactors splashed Mars crust into orbit to form those moons, it seems likely to me that the crust splashed, could
have had water in it's minerals. And the impactor might have had water and Carbon in it.

We have been told that for our Moon, it became bone dry. That is a stupid saying anyway. Are bones of whales on the bottom of
our oceans "Bone Dry". Those who said it likely intended to use the word "Bone" to convey lifeless. They had their agenda,
and it did not favor continuation of space exploration in the way it had just been done. It likely did not serve national
interests as they understood it to be. Still, they lied to us.

Upon impact, there would be compression and heating. Bouncing up into the sky acceleration would stop. The speed would have
to be great. It is possible that some loss might happen, but I think that at some releatively quick point the materials
would be in free fall. We can also anticipate that some of the materials would not be melted at all. Otherwise the
theory of Panspermia would not make any sense. Anyway molten materials in orbit with probably gas bubbles in them, would
not necessarily discharge the bubbles, as they would be in free fall in circles around the planet. They would form a ring,
which should quickly cool.

So, I feel it likely that some of the Carbon and Hydrogen might be retained.

Deimos seems to look like that, Phobos, not so much. However either of these moons could have accumulated a coating from
a subsequent impact event. Anyway we know where we could get Carbon and Hydrogen, or Methane, Mars.

So, to me it makes a lot of sense to think of developing both the surface of Mars and the orbits of Mars.

Done.

Void · 2021-10-31 13:02:03

This may apply to Mars some day.

Just have a think, (Solar film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGQAOeSnErs

Just putting this here, as it seems worth a look, and I want to comment on the notion
of playing "Binary Sports Games", with technology. Binary competition probably only
belongs in sports, or war. When dealing with technology, in my opinion, it is stupid
to choose a winner, and then chose to suppress other options.

An example would be Solar vs Nuclear Fission for Mars. You should have pilot programs
at least for each, when it can be afforded, as we can expect the answer for the question
"Which is the best", to continuously change, as technology updates in each. In order
for technology to update for each, they must be actively used technologies.

And of course others will possibly show up. Orbital Solar, (Various kinds), Geothermal,
Fusion. Since we cannot predict which will advance technologically very well, then
we just stub our toes, if we let specialist experts, who have trouble seeing the big
picture, have their hand on the direction things might be encouraged to go.

This also feeds into how to handle environmentalists/luddites.

I am very much in favor of improving the methods of production so that they are more
favorable to a good outcome for the world we live on and the worlds that humans should
also live on.

I am supportive of the notion of Jeff Bezos, where he thinks that the greater the
human population, the more creative individuals there can be. Many people are simply
Copy Cats. That is not necessarily wrong. We send people to training so that they
might copy, what has been produced as useful method. If those people are not so
creative, then it is best to encourage them to copy success. It is a benefit to
everyone.

I believe that Elon Musk, and others see the opportunity to expose humans to new
living situations, and that necessity is the mother of invention.

I think that things that are wrong about the "Stay at homers", is they would make
us miss out on what could be provided by exploration and expansion. Inventions
anywhere in many cases could cross over between worlds, and also trigger the making
of new versions of those inventions.

The Stay at homers, seem to have a wrong notion that they can tell us what to do, and
we will then do it. They can speak for themselves, and we might listen to such
opinions, but we are entirely correct in dismissing their cake eating desires if we
want to.

I think it very likely that those "Cake Eaters", are technologically challenged, and
linguistically gifted, (To a fault). They are used to telling other people to do things
that advantage them. To them life is a beautiful circle, everything is blessed by words.

Hierarchy to them is a blessing as well. Far beyond the needed amount for a linked
managed society. Having brought white skin to Europe from the Middle east, they were
very proficient at agriculture and words, very good at alpha male procreation, and
while they have quite a lot that is good to have, in many cases, in my opinion they
brought on dark ages.

For instance a conquering empire capturing nations, may be prosperous due to linking
various cultures, eventually alpha male breeding from the conquering people, eliminates
the human potentials that the other nations had. It is an alpha male jealousy. If they
see wealth, then they struggle to take it. Thus Multiplying their overrepresented genes.
In a similar fashion females in such a society stop having children. The societies
eventually start relying on foreign labor.

Greece, Rome, and now perhaps us down the line a ways.

The alpha male would often have the following qualities: Good verbal skills, good murder
skills, (Although that can be done in a hidden way), Pretty boys. (Actually stone age
attributes.

So the selection of stone age males, then breeds the nation back into the stone age.
A beautiful circle of life.

It is typically in more wild and less organized areas where other types of people can
persist. Civilization as seen in textbooks, should really be thought of as organized
cruelty. I am not anarchist. I simply say I would rather force civilization to higher
levels, and not allow the pretty boys, and their minions draw us downward.

You can look at a map of the world, and what I have said, is evident, at least to me.

Those places where talkers of violence rule, produce very little creative wealth, but
are glad to mimic killing methods of technology. Classic Alpha Male.

Not Smart, not Dumb.

But we could do better.

Done.

My spelling? It will irritate English teachers And I am lazy and need to go to
the gym anyway.

All right I cleaned it up a bit for (th)

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-10-31 13:10:46)

Void · 2021-11-01 11:46:46

I have been thinking about cold and fossil cold of Mars, and the universe as experienced on Mars.

First of all the sky's of Mars expose Mars more fully to the cold of the Universe. Because of a thin atmosphere, and because the sunlight flux is less than the Earth.

Also the ice's of Mars, CO2 and H20, hold the cold of the solid substance, and the cold of phase changes.

I am not the only one on this site who has suggested that a heat sink can be a resource. Mars is possibly better at it than the Earth.

So, we have the fossil cold of Mars, which is in the existing materials of Mars, and has been imprinted into those materials in the past.

Then we have the renewable cold of Mars which is better than Earth, I think as the sky without the sun is cold, and the Martian atmosphere is a thin blanket.

We can consider cold as a sink for vibrations. We then want a source of vibrations.
At this time the sun and nuclear fission are two good choices at this time.

Some cold craters with ice near or in them, and the polar ice caps

Name unknown to me, Crater in a giant ice slab mid latitudes.
Lets call it "Slab Crater". Corrected link
https://www.space.com/30502-mars-giant- … y-mro.html

Korolev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(Martian_crater)

Martian polar ice caps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_polar_ice_caps

They all have cold in abundance, I expect.

For a south facing inclined surface, perhaps a crater rim, it seems likely that you could
relatively easily deploy rolls of flexible solar cells as spoken of in the previous post.
This would possibly allow you to have LED agriculture, possibly under ice layers, and
accumulating heat over time. This then would be agriculture, but the waste heat might also
be rejected into the sky by various means to generate electricity when the sun isn't shining.

For a North facing incline, you may have heliostats, that heat up a cavity of material
made out of regolith. This also could store heat longer term, and you might use heat
rejection to generate electricity, perhaps using anti-solar cells.

If you go Nuclear, then it should be expected that you have quite a heat sink in the ices.

Instead of continuing further with things that are obvious, I have been wondering about
nuclear waste on Mars. and perhaps Earth.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 103802.htm
Quote:

Microbes deep beneath seafloor survive on byproducts of radioactive process

I think that a use for Mars could be to experiment on how to dispose of or rather use nuclear
waste materials, at least some of them.

I have been wondering if, at least for Mars, nuclear waste could be diluted into slag,
to make it less dangerous, perhaps.

Then then to put it under lake bottom soil for an isolated lake that would be
constructed. At a latitude where, if you desired the entire body of water would freeze.

However, could you leave the lake bottom thawed, and add CO2 to the water, and perhaps
expect productive biology from radiolysis?

The product could be Methane that could be released to atmosphere. I am not sure that
that Methane would be any serious threat. Of course this would likely be for
creating a greenhouse effect.

Perhaps some nuclear nerds could instruct me on how right or how wrong I am.

For Earth, of course doing something like that would be more risky. I have see where
some poeple think to put the waste in a subduction zone. However I think that if it might
be very diluted, and perhaps surrounded by corrosion resistant coatings, it might be
fairly safe. Then you would bury it on an ocean bead and under the sediments, in a place
where any output from it would be likely to remain stable.

The Mars experiment first though.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-02 16:01:12)

Void · 2021-11-02 12:05:47

For me the content of the previous post is of great interest. I would hesitate to do it on Earth, but for Mars, I think it could be a gift.

My impression is that for smaller atoms such as Carbon, the isotopes created would only produce low level danger, maybe alpha or so. On Earth we would not inject Carbon containing molecules into the Radiolysis Chemical Reactor(s). But on Mars, in hopes of generating greenhouse gasses, we might.

Certain of the waste products could also be chemically toxic, so you would not want to include them most likely.

------

The link in the previous post that this quote comes from suggests life on alien worlds.

Quote:

Microbes deep beneath seafloor survive on byproducts of radioactive process

I am thinking Europa and worlds like Europa.

I am thinking dust impacting Europa, and being altered into isotopes by the radiation of the magnetic field of Jupiter. I am thinking that it may be that the ice cycles up and down in the ice shell and that isotopes of heavier elements may be delivered to the sea floor of Europa.

I am thinking of worlds like Europa, which could orbit various objects, Stars, Brown Dwarfs, White dwarfs. Worlds like Europa.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-02 12:15:01)

Void · 2021-11-02 12:17:54

Should we be able to generate sufficient warming methods for Mars, including greenhouse gasses, it seems desirable to try to achieve this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 … 154813.htm
Quote:

Icy clouds could have kept early Mars warm enough for rivers and lakes

I have mentioned that before. However, it is important in my opinion. We will want to wake up a hydrosphere on Mars in my opinion. To do this we may want to increase the atmosphere.

I want to divert, to suggest a unit of measure for Mars. The: "MarsBar".

A Bar is from Earth, and referenced sort of to a supposed sea level measure of atmosphere, I think. Then to deal with Mars, we may use fractions of a bar to describe situations on the surface of Mars, and in it's higher atmosphere.

I have tried to think what would the reference be for Mars. It could be the bottom of Hellas, but if we terraform, then that will change. It could be the average or mean for Mars, but that also may change, and does naturally.

The triple point for water seems good to me. We know we cannot have liquid fresh water at all below that pressure, under normal conditions. Perhaps you can have super cooled fresh water. I don't know and don't really think it matters.

It is supposed that if all the CO2 ice were vaporized in the Martian ice caps at the same time, then the atmospheric pressure of Mars would double. So, just for giggles, I will call that ~2 MarsBars of pressure.

Under those conditions, it is supposed that there could be actual snow, and actual snow melts, at least in some places on the surface of Mars. The snow melts could create temporary streams, and so then maybe ice covered bodies of water.

The warming from ~2 MarsBars, might tend to warm up the general surface, possibly releasing more gas over time. It would likely more greatly conduct moisture from ice containing surfaces to higher altitudes and latitudes.

So, that then moves things closer to "Icy Clouds" as mentioned in the article referenced. We might also consider using the Musk Flash bombs.

We might also have a heat source, and turbines, and simply flash hot steam into the atmosphere while generating electricity, and so hope to humidify the upper atmosphere. Sources of heat that may be available now would be solar thermal and Fission. I think it likely that orbital devices might assist the lifting of the water released from the power plants to the higher atmosphere. Mirrors, Microwave, etc.

And so if we create a cloud diode more warming might occur, and a more active hydrosphere, and perhaps warming the regolith and also splitting water vapor in the higher atmosphere, then increasing the atmospheric pressure, and even perhaps creating an Ozone layer. To do that I think a magnetic field for Mars, is needed to help retain the Oxygen.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-02 12:36:38)

Void · 2021-11-02 12:39:48

I have been thinking about nuclear propulsion in Space, and have come up with some strange ideas.

Normally I think of a booster that does not leave it's host planet, and does not land on it, except in an error.

I was thinking that of course you are not going to aerobrake this thing into the Earth's atmosphere, and most likely not into the atmosphere of Mars.

But I thought about aerobraking in the Solar Wind. This has been proposed for interstellar flights to brake the speed, during approach of the star.

So, if you associate a very large magnetic field with nuclear propulsion, you may be able to achieve new types of results.

I am purposely being vague on this device. It would be very compound. Would have some type of fission propulsion, and would have the ability to generate electricity to supply a magnetic field, and likely a Starship, crewed or not.

So, this magnetic field would also be able to help push the assembly outward. Some concepts even know how to use the solar wind to go inward towards the sun.

So, to me, at some point you want to push much of the propellant out through whatever nuclear driven propulsion you have in order to lighten the assembly so that the magnetic field can more easily push the assembly.

Of course the Starship might be put to work for the assembly with chemical propulsion when needed.

Now, what about solar panels? We might like some as a structure between the nuclear device and the Starship. They also can contribute electricity.

Stowing solar panels or heliostats, in the Starship to send them to Mars would be like transporting horses to the west coast inside of a covered wagon. They can walk and they can pull.

So then for the return trip, if there is one, less solar panels or heliostats.

Maybe the separation of the nuclear booster from the starship is less, but a shield of water or ice from Mars, could compensate. The water then being delivered to Earth orbit, perhaps.

Done.

Oh, I forgot, sun radiation, GCR, and radiation from the magnetic field. The hope that some of it would be handled by the magnetic field, but I have a bit of concern about what would happen to the radiation from the nuclear device. Would the magnetic field conduct it to the other parts of the assembly, such as solar pannels, and humans?

I do not know.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-02 12:56:29)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-02 12:50:27

For Void ... the archive contains posts that include the words nuclear and propulsion.

Pages:Previous 1 … 18 19 20

FluxBB found 20 pages of topics that meet the criteria.

It would be neat if you could come up with something that has not already been added to the archive.

(th)

Void · 2021-11-02 12:57:29

(th),

I will consider it over time. I devote too much time and thinking to this site, and not enough to other aspects of my life. But thanks for the suggestion.

Done.

Void · 2021-11-02 16:02:12

Micro Climates, and Ice Armor:

From #62 of this topic, a quote to set this up:
Quote

Some cold craters with ice near or in them, and the polar ice caps
Name unknown to me, Crater in a giant ice slab mid latitudes.
Lets call it "Slab Crater". Corrected link
https://www.space.com/30502-mars-giant- … y-mro.html
Korolev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(Martian_crater)
Martian polar ice caps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_polar_ice_caps
They all have cold in abundance, I expect.
For a south facing inclined surface, perhaps a crater rim, it seems likely that you could
relatively easily deploy rolls of flexible solar cells as spoken of in the previous post.
This would possibly allow you to have LED agriculture, possibly under ice layers, and
accumulating heat over time. This then would be agriculture, but the waste heat might also
be rejected into the sky by various means to generate electricity when the sun isn't shining.
For a North facing incline, you may have heliostats, that heat up a cavity of material
made out of regolith. This also could store heat longer term, and you might use heat
rejection to generate electricity, perhaps using anti-solar cells.
If you go Nuclear, then it should be expected that you have quite a heat sink in the ices.

I will start with Korolev, and wonder if we could move to lower latitude craters,
and achieve useful results.

Korolev is apparently already a micro-climate. It has a cold trap. That in part, I think may exist because of the reflectivity of the ice inside, and also the barrier to horizontal air flow presented by the crater walls. Maybe that is some of it anyway.

Korolev, apparently has a fighting chance to fight with the two polar ice caps to take and retain water ice.

I remember a long time ago GW Johnson and I had conversation about using regolith to protect a layer of ice, likely over melt water from evaporation/Sublimation.

Over time, there has been more thinking along these lines. At this point, I see that Korolev is a rugged place, but likely a very desirable place.

It currently does not seem to need "Ice Armor". Still there are photons impinging on the ice and the crater rim. Why not manipulate them?

And in that situation I would start with solar panels on the south facing rim, for a seasonal energy boost. I would also put heat soaks and solar panels in other parts of the rim. I would put heliostats all over the icy surface, to redirect photons to targets. Targets might be crater rim objects, and also solar thermal towers, just about anywhere in the ice surface.

Where today solar energy bounces off of the ice to quite an extent, and so then may warm the sky above parts of the crater, that solar energy may be pushed into our made objects of energy production and environment manipulations.

As you might store energy from the summer into the winter, and also cool the ice more by shading it with heliostats, it may be possible to intensify the cold on top of the ice, while storing heat in our target objects.

There could be other tricks of manipulation. Anyway, if you can make Korolev more attractive to moisture than the polar ice caps, then you might achieve a net build-up of ice, without any other actions.

I have suggested pushing moisture out of turbine generators into the atmosphere, and escorting the moisture to higher altitudes with orbital assets such as mirrors and microwave projectors. However, it may also be possible to make that escort method project from the ground. Perhaps whirl winds containing moisture escorted by microwave projectors on the ground aiming on the "Twister".

So, solar is possibly a terraform tool, and an energy boost in the sunny part of seasons, and storage, is possible by various means for winter time.

However, I would not neglect nuclear fission at all. That should perhaps be more oriented towards year around life support, but it could also vent steam to the atmosphere. If it is possible to escort the moisture into the sky, then fine. Otherwise it is likely to settle on to the ice.

-------

So, the question is, could we use something like this on craters in lower latitudes, and create a micro climate that might attract and store moisture on the crater floor.

If so, then we would have less need to conduct liquid water to lower latitudes. We would simply create local micro climates in some places.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-02 16:22:49)

Void · 2021-11-21 12:57:36

I like to believe that I have some notions of electrical, magnetic things, but I am not up-to-speed on this.

Still I am very interested.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Un … &FORM=VDRE

I have other notions about Phobos as well, but for now I stay with the flow.

These may offer a bit of support for the above.

The query "Mars magnetic field, Phobos" yielded this for me:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 339190133U

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002E … M/abstract

Well, the sure thing I got out of this is that Phobos, has materials that are compatible with magnetism, which suggests to me Iron and/or Nickle.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-21 13:06:42)

Void · 2021-11-25 15:18:26

I guess it will not hurt to have a 3rd mirror posting area.

Some references from the
other two are:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10090
Around #13 post and sort of.

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10088
Posts #1-#7 at least up to this time.

I want to put some material in this topic, as it also relates to levels of terraforming,
and I don't want to cause the work of the other members to be deviated towards my
thinking in those topics. I am glad to see them work things out in the directions that
seem sensible to them.

The conversations in those two topics have stimulated some thinking from me.

I do understand that almost certainly SpaceX/Nasa will follow rather closely what has been disclosed about an initial base on Mars. Of course a base has to come before a city.

I am going to supposed a developing habitation of Mars that will be multilocation.

1) SpaceX initial base.
https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/09/space-x … ing-sites/
2) Korolev Crater.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korolev_(Martian_crater)
3) The rift valley. Valles_Marineris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris
4) Hellas. Hellas_Planitia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellas_Planitia

Of course #1 is what is currently planned for the 1st landing and base, and I have to presume that the people making the plan have lots of good sense.

For #2, I am becoming more and more sure that a Korolev Sea would be a thing to desire and may be something to start and then scale up over time. My thinking is that in time, if the CO2 of the South ice cap is evaporated, then the pressure on the surface of the ice may be ~16 mBar.

I think that even before that it will be possible to start melting a sea, with Heliostat mirrors and Nuclear power. This could be a precursor to when mirrors are in orbit to help warm the poles and other areas. Mirrors could be arranged on south facing rim areas and to target certain places in the edge of the ice mass.
It is considered likely that even now it can be possible to melt small pockets of liquid water into the ice below the surface of an ice mass, in some places on Mars.
So, with Heliostats, that possibility could be optimized. Also "Ice Armor" methods could be employed to make it work better, reducing sublimation of ice surface.

Ice covered water, and also manufactured snow beds, Ect. would be rather good for ballistic capture methods. I will return to that subject in a further post, most likely.

As for #3, "Valles_Marineris", a complex valley floor with steep rock faces, suggests that a collection of Heliostats could paint light onto portions of elivated
walls. Others have suggested dwellings in cliff faces. It is obvious that it could be done here. You could in fact drill a tunnel that was somewhat at an angle where
concentrated light would enter a hole in the wall and be reflected into a chamber.
This could be for agriculture or energy.

As at this location the sun at times is North and then South, in repeated pattern, then you have ~~~2 Earth year, in this location in 1 Mars year.

A danger of cave in would exist.

Water is an issue. But if there are aquifers, then I think it may be possible to drill through the permafrost to get to them.

#4, Hellas_Planitia, it thought to have glaciers in it in southern places, also drilling
to get to artesian wells is a possibility here, provided that there are actually aquifers under or on the sides of the basin.

It will be the best place for air pressure, multiplying that up the best of all places of the base of Mars atmosphere, and so making a best landing place for ships, and also perhaps some sort of specialized agricultural potentials, maybe.

Of course, if the air pressure of Mars does approach the reduction in need for pressure suits, that will best chance for it will be found here.

I am in favor of putting the bulk of settlers into one of these places, depending on which one works out the best. However, smaller populations could be in the 3 others.

The possibility of annual migrations is to be explored.

Good enough for tonight.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-25 20:21:35)

Calliban · 2021-11-26 09:51:56

Most people seem to understand terraforming as being the creation of Earth analogue environments, complete with an atmospheric composition and pressure similar to Earth's. True terraforming has been shown here and in other places to be almost impossible on Mars. The planet does not have Earth's endowment of water, carbon and nitrogen. There is literally no method known to physics that allows Earth gravity to be replicated on Mars.

Other discussions have raised the question as to whether terraforming is even desirable. The Martian atmosphere is thick enough to shield out solar flares and most of the cosmic ray hazard, although it is not so good in this respect as Earth's atmosphere. It is thick enough to shield out most meteorite hazards. The Martian atmosphere has unique properties that we can exploit. It is thick enough to protect us from many hazards. But it is thin enough to allow huge diurnal temperature fluctuations that can be exploited for power production. It is also thin enough to allow mass drivers to operate on its surface. This gives Mars a huge cost advantage over Earth in terms of orbital manufacturing capabilities. The thin atmosphere allows high speed transportation like hyperloop, without the need to create artificial vacuum. It also allows better expansion ratio for rocket engines and jet engines. The coldness of the atmosphere and its composition, also makes it highly compressible, making it a useful source of carbon and oxygen.

We are attracted to the idea of terraforming because we want to replicate what we know. But the fact is that there are huge advantages presented by this new environment just the way it is. Terraforming and increasing the thickness of the atmosphere would compromise those advantages, without really giving us the sort of living environment we enjoy on Earth. A 20mbar Martian CO2 atmosphere isn't something we can breath and it doesn't negate the need for surface habitats to be pressure vessels. But it does compromise a lot of the advantages that the Martian environment presents us already. A smart man looks for ways to use things for what they are, not to change their nature, especially if that involves huge costs and timescales.

This is I think the way Mars colonisation will work. To a certain extent, a Martian civilisation will introduce changes to the environment just by being there. Our agricultural areas will be darker than surrounding areas. Our nuclear power sources will release waste heat. Our industrial activities will leak greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These things will happen whether we want them to or not. And the net effect will be a gradual thickening of the atmosphere and a shift in its composition. I think by the time this reaches a point where it makes the surface more habitable, human beings will have long adapted to the planet's low pressure and low temperature conditions. Warmer temperatures would mean groundwater, which would be a nuisance to a troglodyte civilisation. A thickening atmospheric would mean more atmospheric dust, stronger dust storms, more frictional heating in mass drivers and hyperloops.

By the time they get there, terraforming may be something that is no longer desirable to Martians. From our point of view, looking forward to options for a Martian civilisation before any man has set foot there, the questions resolve entirely around how we adapt to the conditions that we find there. How do we carve out pockets of life? Large scale changes to planetary environments require large scale engineering, which won't be possible at all for a long time to come. But underground settlements, greenhouses, ice covered ponds, etc, are near term options that can be considered without changing global conditions.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-26 10:09:25)

Void · 2021-11-26 10:44:57

Calliban,

Always good to hear from you.

Your arguments have merit in my world of thinking. I am not that far from you.

I have similarly felt that a Mars that has ~twice the atmospheric pressure would be ideal. However, before that it would have what it has now. That would support what you like.

So, there is the potential of a progression through time. Setting up orbital assets such as solar power, and habitats in orbit of Mars could be a thing to do the bulk of before thickening the atmosphere. And with that level of development, after that, access to Phobos and Deimos, Near Mars Asteroids, and the asteroid belts, will reduce the need to use mass drivers on the surface of most of Mars.

But with a doubled atmosphere, consider this:

-You can jump Starships out of Hellas, onto Olympus Mons or some other peak.
-At that point you have Carbon, and Oxygen still available in a thin atmosphere, and can bring Hydrogen if you don't have that available on the mountain. However, it is quite possible that ice deposits would develop at altitude if the atmosphere is doubled in pressure.

From that peak or those peaks you still should be able to use mass drivers to put things to orbit. The Starship refueled can jump back to Hellas and have a superior air cushion, or can leap to orbit. From orbit or from interplanetary space Starship can land in Hellas, where the pressure should be ~23 mBar, if there were no atmospheric compression, but with compression it should be much more.

As for dust storms, that danger exists, but I have considered the probability that the increased greenhouse effect will warm the poles more than the equator. So, that will tend to reduce the differential temperature/pressure across the planet.

Most global dust storms start in Hellas, I think when Mars has it's closest approach to the sun. I have reasoned that if the settlers put lots of Heliostats in that basin, and captured the energy into storage, then peak heating can be reduced and that may help.

Having orbital assets such as Mirrors, Solar Power plants, and Elon Musk's flash bombs, it should be possible to continuously melt the southern polar ice cap, and to have a water flow down, into Hellas. So, Hellas might be made into an ice covered sea. (Not a small project). That then would be capturing energy from solar orbital, Flash Fusion, and the planets own supplemented water cycle.

Flowing water can warm itself just by moving, but if needed in some places additional warming may be needed. Tunnels in some places for the water per the Boring Company.

And if Hellas were to become an ice covered sea, it would be reflective, especially, if heliostat mirrors and energy receiving devices were to tuck the energy under the ice into the water. And of course such giant thermal storage devices as the "Korolev Sea", and the Hellas Sea, and probably a "North Polar Sea", would make Martian winters much more livable.

So for Mass Drivers, the mountain peaks should still work, and for Starship, it should be possible to reload propellants on the Mountain peaks, and also in orbit as Phobos and Deimos and other small bodies could supply much of what is needed for more propellants in orbit, and indeed it may be possible to launch Hydrogen to orbit with Mass drivers and Starships.

Obviously ice covered seas should be places where some agriculture could occur on a large basis.

I do not have a calculation for what the gravity compressed air pressure would be in Hellas. Perhaps you could make an estimate.

Hopefully my response was reasonably sensible. If so, I concur with you that Mars has a great potential as it is now, and in the first level of terraforming including the items I have mentioned.

I feel that eventually then Martians would seek to gain a greater atmosphere some centuries from now, when materials can be obtained from the asteroid belt, and the Jupiter system.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-26 11:06:10)

Terraformer · 2021-11-26 15:38:52

A 20mbar Martian CO2 atmosphere isn't something we can breath and it doesn't negate the need for surface habitats to be pressure vessels.

It does if they're just for producing biomass. And most of the land we need will be for producing biomass. If we can make vast areas suitable for growing hardy trees and grasses, then colonisation becomes far far easier. Especially if there is a few mb of oxygen in the air that can be pulled out whenever we need it, removing the need to carry bulky tanks with us when travelling or for buffering habitats.

Void · 2021-11-26 19:59:43

Well I think it is good to review various possibilities.

But in the end, a saying that I ran across applies: "The future belongs to those who will be there".

I actually think that some sort of compromise could be found that may satisfy many notions of desires for Mars.

Done

Void · 2021-11-27 10:45:02

We also can consider "Skyhooks" in conjunction with other things like mass drivers, and even Starship/Mini-Starship methods.

I have been trying to keep an open mind as I did not believe that a solid geared energy storage device could be significant, which shows, I don't know all that much.

The first half is more about energy storage with water, and later then gravity batteries that are like cranes.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=An … M%3DHDRSC3

As I have said, I don't think I would ever have dreamed such a thing up. So, that shows me my limitations to some degree.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-27 10:47:24)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2021-10-18 09:58:18

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#52 2021-10-18 10:17:00

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#53 2021-10-18 10:57:52

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#54 2021-10-21 10:21:54

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#55 2021-10-27 09:46:51

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#56 2021-10-27 13:57:15

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#57 2021-10-27 17:38:14

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#58 2021-10-28 13:23:43

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#59 2021-10-30 13:52:19

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#60 2021-10-30 17:24:51

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#61 2021-10-31 13:02:03

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#62 2021-11-01 11:46:46

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#63 2021-11-02 12:05:47

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#64 2021-11-02 12:17:54

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#65 2021-11-02 12:39:48

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#66 2021-11-02 12:50:27

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#67 2021-11-02 12:57:29

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#68 2021-11-02 16:02:12

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#69 2021-11-21 12:57:36

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#70 2021-11-25 15:18:26

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#71 2021-11-26 09:51:56

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#72 2021-11-26 10:44:57

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#73 2021-11-26 15:38:52

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#74 2021-11-26 19:59:43

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

#75 2021-11-27 10:45:02

Re: Terraforming Mars, and connecting it functions to the other planemos

Board footer