Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

Ian Flint · 2004-05-31 22:34:44

Wow, mbastion!!!

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.

Excellent point!

>"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.

Uh oh, I think your using semantics. Naughty, naughty!

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.

Um...let's see...you "can't argue a point", you "use semantics to push your point across", and since your models aren't finished you "know you could be wrong". Yes, "It IS very irritating, very frustrating."

Hey, they're your rules, not mine.

Here's a little tip about interpersonal relations: If you come across as a jerk, no one will take anything you say seriously.

Maybe if you act nicer I'll take a look at your website.

By the way, I do like a good devil's advocate, and I think you fit the mold pretty well. But, loosen up a little, eh? Try using the smileys a little or something. :band:

Rxke · 2004-05-31 23:03:40

since your models aren't finished you "know you could be wrong".

Heh, Ian, I don't think mbastion is being a jerk, just putting his -quite understandable- frustration under words, so to say. The bringer of bad news got shot in the olden days, but sometimes he has very important news to bring...

I don't think it's wrong (H2 escape), it *is* a fact, just not errr... put in exact numbers, yet. The *fact* needs not be argued (since it is proven), details might be interesting...

it *is* a problem. But how big, that's the question. If you have a system needing tinkering all the time, (supposing stubborn peeps going for it anyway, regardless the issues...) and you use (for instance) the atm.-grazing comets, not only you'll get a wildly fluctuating atm. mix, but also violent atm. pressure fluctuations... Both are *very* bad news for people/plants on the ground... On Earth the partial atm. mix makes for a breathable place, but just a little bit more partial O2 in the mix, and we'd have fires *very* hard to control, for instance. Atm. pressure fluctuation: check your barometer dancing during a storm; 'nuff said. Imagine pressure rises on a much bigger scale, almost instantaneously *shudder*

Humans could take shelter, plants not. Bad news for the budding ecosystem (if any, just for discussion's sake let's assume ...)

Ian Flint · 2004-05-31 23:12:06

Heh, Ian, I don't think mbastion is being a jerk, just putting his -quite understandable- frustration under words, so to say.

See! Now I sound like a jerk and nobody will take me seriously! :laugh:

mbastion, Icks-nay on the erk-Jay. Let's just say you came off as a "frustrated person". :;):

Rxke · 2004-05-31 23:25:25

Hah! Heehee... But you could argue 'we' are equally frustrated for seeing our 'dreams' being scattered by someone who did the number crunching...

Seriously, we're talking like 'add a bit of this, introduce a bit of that... Voila Instant Earth!'

It is a lot more complex than that, but still... I think it should be possible to at least change Mars to a more 'tolerable' environment for higher life-forms, tinkering or not.

But it *won't* be simple. (Or cheap...) And imagine a halted 'tinkering' because of political unrest or something like that...

Shaun Barrett · 2004-06-01 07:54:26

I tend to agree with Ian, whom I do take seriously in this regard.
MB, you come to New Mars with demands; demands that we "Debate" the notion of terraforming Mars, demands that we "prove" Mars can be terraformed, demands that we disregard the work already done in this field by eminent scientists and essentially re-invent the wheel ourselves, individually and on a case-by-case basis.
You deride the interesting and informative work of Martyn Fogg in the field of terraforming by stating, somewhat snidely I think, that he is "a former dentist". You fail to mention that since becoming a dentist, Mr. Fogg has completed two further degrees: A Bachelor's Degree in physics/geology and a Master's Degree in astrophysics. You also, by implication, bid us ignore the work done in the theory of terraforming by scientists of the calibre of Drs. Carl Sagan, Robert Zubrin, and Christopher McKay. Do you seriously propose that these very gifted scientists have somehow failed to notice that the martian gravitational field is unable to retain hydrogen?! Do you, consequently, propose that all the work done by them in terraforming is moot, hingeing on an error, and therefore of no importance? Do you seriously believe that the hydrogen in any water which may pool on the surface of Mars will suddenly and spontaneously break its bonds with the oxygen and waft away into space, as if by magic?

Since you seem to sweep away the work of such highly qualified and intelligent men with such abandon, might we be permitted to ask what qualifications you hold in planetary science?

You ask me to "prove" that Earth can't retain even helium-4, never mind hydrogen, whether molecular or atomic.
Earth started its existence with a primordial atmosphere of roughly 90% hydrogen and 9% helium, like Jupiter. Where do suppose all that hydrogen and helium went?
It escaped into space because Earth's gravity is too weak to retain such light, fast-moving gases for any geologically significant period of time.
The internal heat of planet Earth, the heat which drives volcanism and plate tectonics, derives from a mixture of heat left over from planetary accretion at the beginning of the solar system and the heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements in the crust and mantle. The radioactive decay is constantly producing helium nuclei, which quickly acquire two electrons to become helium atoms, and gradually seep upward through cracks and fissures in the rock to enter the atmosphere. This process has continued uninterrupted for 4.6 billion years, more so in the first 2-3 billion years than more recently, for obvious reasons. But still, helium forms only 0.0005% of Earth's atmosphere.
Where has all of that helium gone?
It escaped into space because Earth's gravity is too weak to hold on to it for long. And, if Earth can't hold helium for long, it certainly can't hang on to lighter and faster hydrogen molecules either!

In fact, MB, I don't really have to prove Earth can't retain hydrogen or helium because, to all intents and purposes, there isn't any in our atmosphere.
Actually, the boot is on the other foot. It's you who must prove, against insurmountable odds, that Earth can retain hydrogen and helium for geologically significant periods.

I confess I don't understand you, MB. You arrive here among us, present us with tables showing which planets can and cannot be terraformed, stating categorically that Mars cannot be terraformed and that we should realise our "fantasy is flawed".
What is even more astonishing is the fact that your position regarding Earth's ability to retain hydrogen, a point central to your argument, is itself fatally flawed in that it doesn't fit the known facts!

I don't know what your agenda is, but I have to say I am singularly unimpressed with your logic and your attitude.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-01 12:31:32

While being in general agreement with Shaun's statements, I'll give MB the benefit of the doubt. Forget "terraforming" for a moment, let's focus on making Mars "moderately habitable." Surely we can increase air pressure to the point that humans can walk on the surface without pressure suits, breathable atmosphere or not.

We can't make Mars another Earth, but we can shrink the Earth-Mars gap. So the question is how terra-esque can we make Mars and what would be required to do so and maintain it.

dicktice · 2004-06-02 07:19:47

Insistance on a strictly scientific interpretation of such terms as "terraform," "terraforming" and "terraformation" is futile, since they were originally introduced in science fiction stories by young writers back in the '30s. My choice would be human habitabliity, or simply "livability." I sure hope that MB doesn't prove MY dream of building pressurized Canyon Cities on Mars is impossible--what with the ability to use flapping-wing suits to fly around in one-bar pressurized [terraformed] air, under such lovely [un-terraformed] low gravity conditions.

Bill White · 2004-06-02 08:16:01

Insistance on a strictly scientific interpretation of such terms as "terraform," "terraforming" and "terraformation" is futile, since they were originally introduced in science fiction stories by young writers back in the '30s. My choice would be human habitabliity, or simply "livability." I sure hope that MB doesn't prove MY dream of building pressurized Canyon Cities on Mars is impossible--what with the ability to use flapping-wing suits to fly around in one-bar pressurized [terraformed] air, under such lovely [un-terraformed] low gravity conditions.

I agree withe this.

Micro-terraforming, or terraforming limited enclosed yet fairly large regions is quite possible, IMHO, within the near to moderate term.

Canyons are a great example.

Making all of Mars a live-able open air planet? Very much more problematic.

Rxke · 2004-06-02 11:43:51

Michael,

I, too am starting to think your definition of 'Terraforming' is too strict, although arguably it is the correct interpretation, i think it is too 'purist'.

Replenishing an atmosphere is not terraforming.

You said in the Moon Terraform thread. 99% of people (not only amateurs) would strongly disagree with that, i think... at least it is *part* of a terraforming scenario...

mbastion · 2004-06-02 19:35:51

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

Shaun Barrett · 2004-06-02 20:00:24

Another comment or two.

MB, May 31 2004, 03:52, wrote the following:-

Use perfluorocarbons and CFCs is fricken stupid! They are atmospheric pollutants (irritants) that humand can't be exposed to.

Although it has a ">" in front of it, as though it's a quote from someone else's post, I can't find it anywhere else so I assume MB wrote it himself. In any case, it is simply not true that perfluorocarbons are dangerous to humans.

The following is taken from the Proceedings of the Postgraduate Course on Mechanical Ventilation, Dept. of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Technical University of Dresden, Germany. The extract comes from a section entitled "Perfluorocarbon aided gas exchange":-

Perfluorocarbons (saturated organofluorides) have unique chemical and physical properties like chemical stability, biochemical inertness (no known metabolism in mammals) ...
Extensive studies in humans showed no toxicity of PFCs when used intravascularly ... as a blood substitute. After temporary storage in cells of the RES, PFCs are eliminated by evaporation through the lungs (>99%) or skin. Therefore PFCs are attractive substances for intra alveolar use as a respiratory medium and potentially useful for transport of drugs into the lungs.

MB, I don't know where you got the impression that PFCs are somehow poisonous. They are in fact so safe they are deliberately introduced into the human body by doctors in the treatment of certain conditions - especially in cases of severe lung damage.

PFCs are of particular interest to those of us here who wish to terraform Mars because of their potential as supergreenhouse gases and would be very useful in raising the average temperature of the martian environment.
It seems odd that you would attack the use of PFCs so strongly when you evidently have so little knowledge of their nature.
???

As I mentioned in a previous post, it seems there's little to be gained in re-inventing the wheel as far as Earth's inability to retain light gases is concerned but, by way of clarifying the situation concerning helium, I'll make some comments.
The kinetic temperature of a gas is proportional to the square of the average particle speed and also proportional to the particle mass.
This has been expressed in the equation:-
V = Sq. Rt. of (2*k*T/M)
Where k is Boltzmann's Constant (1.38066*10^-23)
T is the temperature of the atmosphere
M is the mass of the particle (atom, molecule etc.)

The temperature of the atmosphere, for our purposes, applies to the upper atmosphere, specifically the upper reaches of the thermosphere, where atoms and molecules may escape Earth's gravity. On the sunlit side of Earth, the kinetic temperature of the thin atmospheric gases ranges up to 2500 deg.C, or 2773K on the absolute scale. Generally, temperatures are commonly about 2000K.
6*10^23 helium atoms mass 4 grams ( the gram atomic weight of helium). Therefore one helium atom masses 6.6445*10^-27 kg.
Inserting the values quoted into the above equation, we find that the average speed of a helium atom at the top of the atmosphere is 2880 m/s
Earth's escape velocity is 11200 m/s.
So, does this mean MB is correct? Does Earth really have enough gravity to retain helium? Let's see.

It's been found that in a gas at a certain temperature, the majority of particles (atoms or molecules) will have a speed, at any given moment, commensurate with that average temperature. But not all of the particles are found to be moving at the same speed. Due to random collisions, some of which slow the particles and others of which speed them up, there is a surprisingly large range of particle speds. Some particles may be almost stationary at a given moment, while others can be moving several times the average speed! (Though, naturally, we find less and less particles at the high end of the speed scale.)
The spread of the speeds and the numbers of particles moving at those speeds, at any given moment, is described mathematically by a curve called the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution.

Getting back to our helium atoms in Earth's upper atmosphere, although we found their average speed to be about 2880 m/s, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution curve tells us that significant numbers of helium atoms will be moving at speeds several times that figure - speeds in fact higher than the escape velocity of 11200 m/s!
How does this affect the overall rate of escape of a gas like helium from Earth's gravitational field?
It has been calculated that the ratio of escape velocity to average particle velocity (V.esc/V.av) can be used to estimate how long a gas can be retained by a planet.
Here's a table of figures to illustrate the relationship:-

RATIO TIME TAKEN FOR ALL THE GAS TO ESCAPE
7 Over 1 trillion years
6 Over 10 billion years
5 About 100 million years
4 Under 1 million years
3 Under 1 thousand years

Earth's escape velocity is 11200 m/s and the speed of our average helium atom at the top of the atmosphere is 2880 m/s.
The ratio, V.esc/V.av, in this case is 11200/2880 = 3.9
From this we can see that Earth will normally lose all its helium in less than 1 million years - a geologically insignificant period of time.

Hydrogen is lighter than helium and will therefore be lost even quicker.

A quote from MB's website, in the sectio headed "Photodissociation and Surface Water":-

So a planet must have enough gravity to hold hydrogen in its upper atmosphere for there to be water at the surface.

This statement seems very hard to sustain when you consider that Earth very definitely cannot retain hydrogen in its upper atmosphere (see above) and yet has had vast oceans for nearly all of its 4.6 billion year history.

In fairness, I should say that other calculations do show that Earth has indeed lost about 1 metre of its oceans in that 4.6 billion years. I suppose that means that Earth too will require iceteroids to top up its oceans in about 13.8 trillion years! Does this mean that Earth itself can never be truly terraformed, since it cannot maintain its water indefinitely without 'occasional' outside assistance?
:;):

mbastion · 2004-06-03 03:25:52

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

Shaun Barrett · 2004-06-04 02:31:17

Quote from MB, re. the theoretical work of Fogg, Sagan, Zubrin and McKay on the topic of terraforming:-
"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 public's desire to colonise other worlds and the romantic fantasy of exploring space and turned it into a commercial product. ... these people are making big bucks by saying "Mars can be Terraformed".
... 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."

This is the first time I've ever come across a conspiracy theory accusation aimed at the big names in terraforming!
Do you seriously propose that Drs, Sagan, Zubrin, and McKay, not to mention Fogg, are prepared to put their names to a lot of hot air about terraforming, risking their hard-earned intellectual reputations, just to sell a few books to a few wild-eyed, ignorant, uncritical space cadets?!
Do you come here on some kind of a mission to lead us out of the darkness into the light of reason, to sweep away the lies and crass commercialism of the evil Dr. Zubrin and his cronies? Are you suggesting that all of us here are so stupid and easily-led that we are incapable of deciding for ourselves whether or not we're being fed a lot of bulls***?!
???
If so, I could imagine more than a few of us feeling somewhat put out by such behaviour.

Moving on to some other points.
MB, you ask me about my qualifications. Suffice it to say, they are the equal of your own.
But the reason I asked about your qualifications was not so you and I could compare the size of our certificates(! ), but rather so we could gauge your fitness to disregard the work of eminent Doctors of Philosophy and come among us to lead us away from our 'fantasies' and toward scientific redemption.

Quote from MB:-
"What equation did you use to calculate the exospheric temperature? or did you use someone elses estimate?"

I trawled Google for information on this because I see no reason to re-invent the wheel at every step of the way. No doubt you will find this unsatisfactory.
The full extent of the exosphere is debatable. There is general agreement that it extends to at least 800km, though some place the ceiling at 1280km. In a constantly thinning medium, it is difficult to be exact. (Apparently, it's possible to theorise that the exosphere extends to an altitude of tens of thousands of kilometres! )
But there is much closer agreement on the kinds of temperatures found in the thermosphere/exosphere. At an altitude of some 700km, temperatures of up to 2273K occur, while higher up on the sunlit side of the planet temperatures can reach 2773K.
For the sake of my calculations of helium atom speeds in this region of the atmosphere, I chose the round figure of 2000K in order to be generous to your side of the argument and avoid accusations of choosing figures which suited my own purposes.

Quote from MB re. the figure I used for Earth's escape velocity in my previous post:-
"Did you include the exobase height in that calculation?"

First of all, there was no calculation involved. I used the escape velocity quoted in all the texts, which relates to the velocity required at sea-level to completely escape Earth's gravitational field.
Naturally, at 800km altitude, the escape velocity will be somewhat diminished. If you wish to be pedantic about it, we can do the figures and see what happens. But you understand they will hurt your case, not help it?
Escape velocity is given by the equation:-
V.esc = Sq. Rt of (2GM/R)
Where G is the Gravitational Constant
M is the mass of the body
R is distance to body's centre of mass
G is 6.673*10^-11 (for SI units)
M is 6*10^24kg (for Earth)
R is 7,178,000m (for an altitude of 800km above sea-level)
Inserting the numbers into the equation, we find the escape velocity in the exosphere is 10,562m/s

If we use this escape velocity to find the ratio of V.esc/ V.av, we obtain 10562/2880 = 3.67
This indicates that helium will be lost from Earth's upper atmosphere faster than the previous calculation indicated!

Given that there is no doubt Earth cannot retain helium, it certainly cannot retain hydrogen, which is lighter and therefore faster.
Yet, with more than twice the insolation of Mars, and a correspondingly hotter exosphere, Earth has maintained enormous oceans on its surface for eons.

You state quite categorically that only planets or Moons with sufficient gravity to retain hydrogen can have water at their surfaces. You have made a list of the bodies which can or cannot be terraformed, based on this tenet.
Given that you have now had demonstrated to you, again (and with equations), the fact that Earth cannot retain hydrogen and yet has oceans, are you prepared to reconsider your position?
I think I probably would, if I were you.

mars2015 · 2005-05-17 08:15:49

If we left the CO2 as is and just added N2 and O2, we'd have a breathable atmosphere (I believe the human cutoff for CO2 is 10 mb or more) and plants would love it! With a few super-greenhouse gases and/or a well-placed soletta, we'd be home free.

Getting all that N and O is another matter...

karov · 2005-05-18 03:46:39

If we left the CO2 as is and just added N2 and O2, we'd have a breathable atmosphere (I believe the human cutoff for CO2 is 10 mb or more) and plants would love it! With a few super-greenhouse gases and/or a well-placed soletta, we'd be home free.
Getting all that N and O is another matter...

Warming the planet will release more CO2 - some stimation point 800 mBars of total CO2 degasation. Part of it will be sedimented in presence of the liquified water, but in principle you`re right. The human cuttoff of CO2 could be increased to what ever we`d like via gengeneering. I found ridiculous the fear that such way new alien human species will emerge. It is ridiculous cause even now in the down of the gengeneering the genetic inscriptions are regarded as reversible and made to mature human organisms. To incude in your DNA temporary the ability to live in say 1 bar CO2/ 100 mBar O2/ 100 mBar N2 atmosphere will not be regarded as more dehumanizing than the temporary necessity here now on EArth to wear some warmer clothes in the polar regions or to put scuba-equipment if going under water...

Such approach could ease in enormous degree the terraforming task, and although I have to amit that I do love the complete and as close to the original as possible terraforming, the coldhearted logic of the market it seems will bring in existence exactly such approaches.
=====================================
You scenario, assuming no degasation is OK. 10 mBars of CO2 - tolerable. Some octafluorpropane C3F8, no soleta necessary. The plenty of O2 from the rocks, the N2 imported with som extra H2 ( directly import artificial ammonia ice micro-comes.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-18 05:44:24

This thread came into being because it was determined that the residual Martian south polar cap is made of water ice and not carbon dioxide ice. This upset some terraforming calculations, which were relying on the CO2 they thought was there in order to bulk up the thin Martian atmosphere.
-- Some of you may recall I had a somewhat heated exchange here with someone called mbastion over the idea of terraforming in general, and the use of perfluorocarbons as greenhouse gases in particular. Mbastion claimed this class of gases is toxic; which I refuted.

Some 14 months on, we're still getting reports like this one, from CBS News:-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/ … 0044.shtml

It tells of research on the terraforming of Mars by Margarita Marinova, a graduate student at the California Institute of Technology. :-
"Marinova says that the goal is to warm Mars enough so that the planet’s south polar cap will evaporate."
-- This is a fine goal but seems to rely on the outdated belief that the south polar cap is predominantly CO2. As we now know, that's not the case. So why are some people still basing their research on it?! :?:

The CBS report goes on to include statements like this:-

That's right. Earthlings are thinking of using the same toxic stuff already blamed for global warming here to put some life back on Mars.

And this:-

As Marinova explains it, the devil’s in the details. And the little devil’s name is octafluoropropane.
"This is our favorite molecule,” Marinova said.
Octafluoropropane is a really nasty greenhouse gas that is the by-product of circuit board production on Earth.

Octafluoropropane, or C3F8, is a perfluorocarbon (PFC) and an essentially inert gas with no measurable toxicity. To re-quote an excerpt from the Proceedings of the Postgraduate Course on Mechanical Ventilation, Dept. of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Technical University of Dresden, Germany:-

Perfluorocarbons (saturated organofluorides) have unique chemical and physical properties like chemical stability, biochemical inertness (no known metabolism in mammals) ...
Extensive studies in humans showed no toxicity of PFCs when used intravascularly ... as a blood substitute. After temporary storage in cells of the RES, PFCs are eliminated by evaporation through the lungs (>99%) or skin. Therefore PFCs are attractive substances for intra alveolar use as a respiratory medium and potentially useful for transport of drugs into the lungs.

-- C3F8 is also used to inflate the human eye as the vitreous gel is removed during vitrectomy surgery. As the eye gradually refills with aqueous fluid over a period of some weeks post-operatively, the gas is harmlessly absorbed by the body and vented to the atmosphere in the way described above.
-- To describe it as "really nasty" is about as far wrong as you can get!

And, as for C3F8 being blamed for global warming here on Earth, that's another error. Although some C3F8 has escaped into the atmosphere from refrigerators and from factories manufacturing semiconductors, and although it is certainly a potent greenhouse gas, the amount released in comparison with CO2 and CH4 (methane), is negligible.
-- Perfluorocarbons are minor players and are not routinely blamed for global warming at all.

-- It should also be pointed out that perfluorocarbons are not the same as chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which contain chlorine. The chlorine in CFCs is released into Earth's stratosphere when the parent molecule is bombarded with UV light. In the bone dry stratosphere, chlorine is an extraordinarily potent catalyst in the destruction of O3, or ozone, and has been rightly blamed for the creation of the 'ozone hole' we're all concerned about. PFCs contain no chlorine and therefore do not contribute to ozone depletion.
-- Again, it's impossible to level the accusation of "really nasty" at C3F8 molecules.

All this could perhaps be construed as nothing more than lamentable scientific illiteracy on the part of the reporter, Jerry Bowen, except for some other comments I think are designed to help 'set the mood' of the piece. :-

Ever since Hollywood directors started yelling “Action!” B-grade science fiction thrillers have depicted a warmer, livable Mars.
Marinova hopes to turn those fictional accounts into reality. She has co-authored a NASA study that says it’s doable – even if it's not understandable. ..
.. The idea has made headlines worldwide – from Marinova's birthplace in Bulgaria to Beijing – raising questions of whether it’s right to fool with Martian nature.

Let's have a look at the whole theme of the report, shall we? :-
" .. same toxic stuff already blamed for global warming here .."
" .. the devil’s in the details. And the little devil’s name is octafluoropropane."
"Octafluoropropane is a really nasty greenhouse gas .. "
" .. B-grade science fiction thrillers .. "
" .. it’s doable – even if it's not understandable."
" .. raising questions of whether it’s right to fool with Martian nature."

Is anyone else here getting the impression Mr. Bowen is trying to tell us something with his inaccurate (?malicious) account of the science here and his apparent attitude toward Martian terraforming in general?
-- And what kind of impression is his nonsense going to leave in the mind of the average reader, who may not have the scientific background to see through his gross inaccuracies and might not be able to recognize the subtle antagonism and gentle derision in his journalistic style? :?:

Rxke · 2005-08-18 15:47:44

Literally saying he does NOT understand the study, but then going on and on and on... with his own preconceived ideas, with clearly badly Googled sources...

Yay, way to go, moron!

And he gets paid for that? I think I'm going to file my resumé at CBS, looks like anyone is fit for the job...

I suggest someone with enough time on his hands, to write a friendly letter to whoever is in charge there of the tech reporting, and kindly explain mr Moron is plainly LYING to his paying readers.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-18 17:27:33

Rik:-

Yay, way to go, moron!
And he gets paid for that? I think I'm going to file my resumé at CBS, looks like anyone is fit for the job...

Exactly!
They say that any publicity is good publicity but, with ignoramuses like this guy writing derisory garbage like this, we'll never persuade the general public to back Mars colonization.
-- This kind of thing fits in with my other pet hate. You know, the way news items about human space colonization or Earth-grazing asteroids get tucked in at the very end of the news bulletin and the newsreader presents it with a wry smile and a giggle - as though it's all just fairy tale science-fiction, good for a laugh, but not worth taking seriously. (Or at least, that's how it's usually portrayed here in Australia.)
-- It's like the universe ends at the cruising altitude of a Boeing 747 and there's nothing above that level! I wonder how these medieval clowns will react when we finally detect an asteroid headed straight for Earth. : "Huh? You mean space is a real place? And we could actuallyget hurt?!! :shock: "
[Twits!]

Rxke · 2005-08-19 01:40:21

Maybe that's got something to do with Australia's science/space politics?

I dunno, but ever since we Belgians had our first astronaut (and second) and our first sat launched, there seems to be a bit more 'engagemen' towards all things space in the press...
Also our 'main' weathermn is not merely a talking head, but actually works as a scientist in the meteorolgy dept., and he's coming over as a non-nerd, who goes off on a tangent about missions sometimes, during his weathertalk. He even sometimes causes a small 'slashdot effect' when he mentions interesting websites during his talk. He can really convey a sense of excitement about missions and 'phenomena' outside our atmosphere.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-19 07:03:05

Rik:-

Maybe that's got something to do with Australia's science/space politics?

Yeah, I think you're right about that. The overwhelming majority of Australian politicians wouldn't have the foggiest notion about anything to do with space or science.
-- We've got Cape York Peninsula, which is practically perfect for a spaceport because it's so close to the equator, but nobody has the vision to get on with it.
-- But how do you get the politicians to wake up to the future in space unless the electorate wants it to happen? And the electorate will never see the value in it as long as the damned media either disseminate BS about it (as in the above article) or treat it as a joke. It's a classic 'chicken-and-egg' conundrum.
-- Sheesh!!

SpaceNut · 2005-08-19 10:33:16

Good space port location but who owns the land and how many acres are there?

Maybe Mars society would aid in funding a space launch port.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-19 19:19:46

Spacenut:-

Good space port location but who owns the land and how many acres are there?

It's 137,000 square kilometres (~53,000 square miles), depending where you draw its southern boundary. Some place that boundary just north of Cairns, which makes its area 200,000 square kilometres - or about the size of Great Britain.
-- Most of it is wilderness and the population is roughly 18,000 - mostly concentrated in the three largest towns of Thursday Island, Weipa, and Cooktown.
Here's a map:-

There are large tracts owned by aboriginal tribes and the conservation movement sees the place as a battleground but there are still vast areas where a spaceport could be constructed without having any significant impact on the overall environment, in my opinion.
-- And half of it is within 15 degrees of the equator - a huge advantage for rocket launches.

All we need is the political will .. politicians who can see further than the next election (precious few of them in this country!) :?

Rxke · 2005-08-20 03:03:41

How's the weather there? (esp. the islands)

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-21 03:55:17

Rik:-

How's the weather there? (esp. the islands)

The Cape York Peninsula has two seasons ... the wet and the dry! In other words it's tropical.
-- It's prone to cyclones, of course, but Florida is prone to hurricanes and is a lot further from the equator (more expensive launches).

Of course, Australian politicians may yet be able to claim that they've been hanging off on development of a spaceport on the Cape because they had such faith in the Space Elevator!!! ...
-- If the SE is built in about 12 years time, equatorial sites will be at a premium and Cape York will be an 'also ran'.
-- We'll see!

In the meantime, I think this thread has wandered quite a long way off topic. And I suspect it's mainly my fault. Sorry! :oops:

Rxke · 2005-08-21 04:04:04

In the meantime, I think this thread has wandered quite a long way off topic. And I suspect it's mainly my fault. Sorry! :oops:

Then it is your duty, Mr. Barrett, to create a new topic pertaining to possible Australian launchspots.

Seriously, if it's tropical, you can add tourist resorts etc... Launch from an island, and the customer can pretend for a while he's the owner, complete with own 'Mwuahahahaha-evil-genius' launch complex!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-05-31 22:34:44

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#52 2004-05-31 23:03:40

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#53 2004-05-31 23:12:06

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#54 2004-05-31 23:25:25

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#55 2004-06-01 07:54:26

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#56 2004-06-01 12:31:32

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#57 2004-06-02 07:19:47

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#58 2004-06-02 08:16:01

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#59 2004-06-02 11:43:51

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#60 2004-06-02 19:35:51

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#61 2004-06-02 20:00:24

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#62 2004-06-03 03:25:52

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#63 2004-06-04 02:31:17

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#64 2005-05-17 08:15:49

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#65 2005-05-18 03:46:39

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#66 2005-08-18 05:44:24

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#67 2005-08-18 15:47:44

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#68 2005-08-18 17:27:33

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#69 2005-08-19 01:40:21

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#70 2005-08-19 07:03:05

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#71 2005-08-19 10:33:16

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#72 2005-08-19 19:19:46

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#73 2005-08-20 03:03:41

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#74 2005-08-21 03:55:17

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

#75 2005-08-21 04:04:04

Re: Water, not CO2 - Bad for terraformers?

Board footer