Planting Oxygen in the Solar System

Good point. As a Greenpeace advocate, I’m utterly opposed to having my breathing air, drinking water, and food being contaminated because the idiot next door needs two $50,000 sports cars made from rare metals. Imagine the pollution caused by mining, refining and casting 100s of pounds of metal that get used twice a month!

On the other hand it’s important not to compare our situation (a viable ecosphere) with the moon (a sterile, dead rock bombarded with massive radiation). What for example, would the explosion of a nuclear plant on the moon do? People and plants can’t live on the surface unprotected, anyhow. There’s no atmosphere to carry radioactive material anywhere, there are no streams to be polluted. I’d say the moon is the perfect place for nuclear power. Not in my backyard, or anybody else’s! The same argument applies for Mercury.

Mars is different, because if there is existing life of any kind we’d need to make decisions about what’s worth keeping. We have to do that every day here on Earth however, and concerning animals that are dearer, more useful, more intelligent, and more interesting than microbes.

Venus is similar to the moon in that it’s a hell-hole without being modified. It does have a very nasty atmosphere, however, and I haven’t heard any clever ideas about making it better.

Ok granted it has taken centuries for us the human species to pollute our earth. And it is not totally gone, in my opinion. What I meant by saying polluting another planet, was basically just stating my frustration for what ‘we’ have done to this planet.
I am all for starting a new on another planet, but I do beleive that would take a very very long time. lichens and happy microbes are nice, but does anyone know with any certainty how long it would take to creat a habitable atmosphere. Say we had to do it quickly, could we?
Maybe those science fiction novels and movies have some validity, [satelites orbiting the earth used for information was a pipe-dream thought up in a science fiction novel] maybe searching for habitable life on other planets is not so far off, or terra-forming for that matter. I think this is a novel question that is most likely going to be given some serious thought in the decades to come. I hope I live to see it in action. Who knows maybe one of our kids will be the first colonists on a distent planet…

[Moderator watch ON]
Just a reminder, folks: The discussion here is “can we”, not “should we”. The latter is a very interesting question, and worthy of discussion, just not in this forum.
[Moderator watch OFF]

As for gravity, both Mars and Earth could hold much thicker atmospheres. We know that Mars can, because it once did: There were definitely permanent bodies of liquid water on the surface of Mars at one point, and that requires something close to the Earth’s current atmosphere. We know that Earth can, because Venus has an atmosphere that’s far thicker, and she’s both hotter and lighter than Earth. What happened to both Mars and Earth is a mystery, as yet: On Earth, it’s believed that it might have something to do with the collision which produced the Moon, but I don’t think there’s even a leading theory, for Mars.

This is from:

http://www.affs.org/en/articles/terraformmars.html.

(Chris McKay is one of NASA’s two or three authorities on the subject.)

"Two proponents of terraforming, Robert Zubrin (formerly a staff engineer at Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, now president of his own company, Pioneer Astronautics) and Chris McKay (of NASA Ames Research Center), calculate that even a 4°C (7°F) rise in surface temperature on Mars would be sufficient to initiate a process that would eventually produce the overall necessary increase of 55°C (100°F) (current temperature on Mars is an average -60°C or -76°F), bringing the average surface temperature above the freezing point, permitting water to exist once again in liquid form on the surface, and transforming a thin atmosphere …

Zubrin and McKay believe the place to start is with the placement of orbital solar reflective mirrors on Solar Power Satellites (SPS) that would circle the Martian poles and focus sufficient heat from the sun to begin warming the caps and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. This process would not destroy the polar caps but would melt a controlled amount, sufficient to start the thickening of the Martian atmosphere and global warming. …

Although Zubrin and McKay estimate that Mars would only reach an atmospheric pressure close to that of Earth’s in 1,500 to 2,500 years, this is not an outlandish time frame. Man could live and work on the planet during the process of terraforming. In fact, with the proper implementation of all four factors—mirrors, drilling, factory-produced gases (CFCs), and bacteria—it could conceivably take less than 500 years for humans to be able to walk on Mars without a space suit, wearing only a small “scuba-type” breathing apparatus around their mouths."

This figure is longer than I remember. I think using other assumptions (i.e. spending more money) the time to create an atmosphere is 200 years.

A better idea is to float colonies on the surface of the ocean or build settlements in the Antarctic. Both locations would be far cheaper/safer/more hospitable than space stations.

The human species has a love of new frontiers and challenges. Because of this I think that efforts will be made to terraform Mars. It would take hundred of years at best to get an atmosphere that could support human activities, and that would probably be only in low laying areas.

There are, of course, problems with trying to create an enclosed biosphere. Just look at all the problems that Biosphere 2 encountered. It may be possible to create a biosphere where only limited manipulations need to be made to ensure long-term habitability, but a fully contained system is a long way off.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pochacco *
**

Right, it would be cheaper, safer and more hospitable. What I was hoping for out of Mars colonization was putting part of the human race someplace where Saddam Hussian and co. couldn’t easily reach it with an atomic bomb.

Also, once the process of terraforming is understood, there are a lot of other places out there besides Mars. Antartican bases don’t get us that technology.

As an aside, a couple professors in a prestigous journal some ten years ago pointed out that life on a space station had many of the same restrictions as a polar base. E.g., great dependence on individuals conforming to rules and regulations. An atmosphere on Mars would solve some of those “hostile environment” problems.

Pochacco: Sure it’s more hospitable. For that matter, so is Bermuda. Let’s just put more people there. You seem to think that the sole purpose of this is to find real estate. It’s not. There’s plenty of that on Earth, and will be for a long, long time.

Seriously, we’re talking in the context of allowing humans to live somewhere OFF EARTH. Why go off Earth? Lots of reasons. One, for the sake of exploration. Healthy societies need common goals. Two, to protect humanity from being wiped out in a cataclysm. Right now, if a planet-killing asteroid hits us, or we have a runaway greenhouse effect, or some other natural disaster befalls us, we could lose the human race. Establishing self-supporting colonies off the planet reduces that risk tremendously.

Finally, the reason to go off-planet is to gain resources and find places to manufacture things we can’t do here. In the case of a space colony, imagine a university with 5,000 people in space. It has its own telescope (better than Hubble!), an engineering department that specializes in zero-g manufacturing research, biology departments that study the effects of low gravity on biological processes, environmental and geology departments that study the Earth, etc. The place pays for itself by renting time on its telescope, by selling patents for new processes, by providing tourist living space, and by manufacturing and servicing satellites and inbound/outbound deep space traffic. It might even manufacture solar power satellites and sell power to Earth.

Once we are comfortable living and working in space, a lot of things become possible. Running low on steel here on earth? Grab a metallic asteroid, spin it in a magnetic field, and let inductive currents melt it. Now draw off the slag and discard it, and you have a solid sphere containing more metal than we could mine on Earth in a decade. Haul it back to Earth, and you’ve just made yourself a trillion dollars or so to fund your next resource grab.

We can’t do that now, because it’s far too expensive to haul all of the equipment off of Earth. But if you have a space colony, you build everything you need in orbit, using mass drivers on the moon to launch raw materials up to the colony for a tiny fraction of what it would cost to launch them from Earth.

This is why I think colonies are a better prospect than terraforming Mars. There’s really no reason to do it. Let’s say that Mars became warmer and had a breathable atmosphere. So what? What are we going to do with it? It’s still not likely to be prime real estate, and we’ve got plenty of better real estate on Earth (and the fears of massive population explosions on Earth turned out to be wrong).

But space colonies would be commercially useful, and that means there is much greater incentive to build them. And the difficulty of doing so is orders of magnitude smaller. We could build them today. If we had the incentive to do so, we could have a million people living in orbit within 100 years. We could have the first colony up and running in 30 or 40 years. The recent discovery of water on the moon makes this much easier.

The first step along the way would be to build a support colony on the moon. This would prove out manufacturing techniques using lunar materials, and their job would be to build the first mass-driver to launch materials into Earth orbit. They might even do the refining and specialized construction work on the moon, and ship finished goods up to the colonies in orbit. Eventually, these things become self-replicating, and then you geat an exponential growth curve happening.

And once we had a thriving ring of space colonies in orbit, that can manufacture complex devices and has ready access to raw materials, then you can use those as your jumping off point to colonize the rest of the solar system for a fraction of what it would cost to do so from Earth.

Mars - - You’ll need to increase the thickness (density) of the atmosphere. Best chance? Perhaps by vaporizing the polar caps. How? Brute force - - smash an asteroid (or small moon? :slight_smile: ) into them. Engineering - - canals toward the equator. Elegance - - bio-engineered plants (lichens or whatever). If you can increase the atmosphere and free up some liquid water, then you’ll have a foothold to work with. But it ain’t gunna be easy.

Oh yeah. Terra forming is more like on the order of 100s or 1000s of years. So any kind of offworld colony would be of the bio-dome kind for quite some time.

It would be easier to terraform Mars. Carl Sagan touched on this in his book “Pale Blue Dot”. Venus’ atmosphere is extremely thick/dense, and acidic, and hot.

Oh, is that all? Hey! Superhot Sulfuric Atmosphere! Hmmm… import atmosphere to a barren rock, or try to replace an atmosphere already there? One step or two? Gee…

Oh, sure, you’re so worried about humanity! What about the beetles, I ask you? Or the lutefisk even!
Seriously, I wonder what joy would remain in human existence if its native biosphere were truly destroyed. Should we even bother?

So the scenario in C. S. Lewis’s Only Visiting This Planet never caught on with astrophysicists, huh? Yeah, I guess an ancient war between supernatural beings would be a bit non-reproducible… :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m wondering how long it will be before I see this arguement in a “legalize hemp” thread.

:slight_smile:

Uh, in your original post you said “I’ve always thought that the easiest way to get more livable space in the short term was to build colonies in orbit.” I was just pointing out that that’s manifestly untrue.

But there are many common goals that we could pick that have a greater chance of coming to fruition. Elimination of all disease. Elimination of all hunger. Zero population growth. Universal literacy.

Assuming that self-supporting colonies are even possible. It’s not proven that we will ever be able to create artificial ecosystems that are stable in the long run. And a colony that isn’t fully self-supporting doesn’t provide any protection against extinction at all.

One might counter that “We won’t know unless we try.” But with so many things to try and limit resources, it makes sense to only try those things that we have a decent chance at succeeding at.

Most of these activities could be handled just fine with small research bases and lots of automation. To revert to my original analogy: Scientists manage just fine in Antarctica with their scattering of small research bases. Building a town of 5000 at the South Pole with a university and industrial facilities would make their jobs only marginally easier at very great expense to the rest of us.

Or you could take the several billion dollars you would spend to get that asteroid and spend it developing new mining technology. Iron is one of the most common elements on Earth. Its not very likely that it would be cheaper to import it from the asteroid belt than it would be to be more aggressive about digging it up at home. And if you want to turn that iron into steel you need a hefty supply of carbon. Right now we get our carbon for steel production from fossil fuels. Where will you get your carbon in space?

Sure, because of the lower gravity the launch cost to get raw materials off the Moon would be cheaper than the launch costs to get raw materials off the Earth. But the extraction costs would be vastly greater.

In the end it’s cheaper to ship a hammer to Antarctica than it is to build an Antarctican infrastructure than could manufacture a hammer locally.

If space colonies are really commercially useful you don’t need to have any other incentive.

The problem is that attempting to colonize space would require a tremendous expenditure up front before you could even establish whether the scheme was profitable or not. To really make a go of it we’re talking something much more ambitious than the the Apollo program. Apollo cost what, about $100 billion. From a business perspective it’s hard to justify spending several trillion dollars on a venture not even guaranteed to break even.

I would love to see colonies established off Earth, either on the moon and Mars, or in orbital habitats. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that unless something happens to make the concept vastly more feasible, we’re unlikely to see it happen in our lifetimes.

Pochacco mentioned Anarctica; let’s examine that for a moment. Let’s say that we want to establish a self-sufficient city in Anarctica. What do we need?
[ul][li] Raw materials: metal, glass, stone. Ok, we site the colony in one of the dry valleys. []Energy: can’t afford to import oil, how about sunlight? You need either solar cells or thermal-electric generating capacity, as well as some way of storing six months worth of energy for the winters. []Food & Waste: It will have to be grown in greenhouses, the acreage of which is huge compared to just the human living quarters. If you want a growing season longer than six months, you will have to provide artifical lighting. The nutrients for the plants will ultimatly come from recycled human waste, so you will have to be very careful that disease or toxic substances don’t get into your food chain. []Water: Although ice is in virtually limitless supply, there’s no liquid water available. Melting it takes energy, and sewage would simply pile up outside the colony indefinitely. So you will have to have nearly total recycling of your waste water, with only small losses made up by mining ice. Note that drinking water for human consumption is the least of it- the main use of water is as a solvent, for cleaning, industrial processes, etc. All of which has to be filtered and reclaimed. []Industry: Presumably there will always be some importation of things that can’t be produced locally. So you have to maintain your balance of trade. What can the colony produce for sale that isn’t available cheaper elsewhere? Scientific research is only a minor sideline, dependent on foreign grants that barely cover costs.[/ul][/li]If all the above sound difficult and expensive, remember that that’s the minimum requirements for a colony in outer space, and doesn’t even address the problems of providing air, radiation protection, etc. It’s worth noting that even at the current prices of airfreight, no one’s coughed up the money to support anything more ambitious than a “moonbase” type facility at the South Pole, and even the most optimistic projections for advanced launch capabilities presume a cost of hundreds of dollars per pound.

Short of discovering dirt cheap antigravity, I don’t think we’ll see much in the way of space colonization any time soon.

Nobody is going anywhere anytime soon. Our current space craft is the equivalent of Columbus using a 2 man rowboat to discover America. You can’t build any kind of colony shipping supplies 1 space shuttle at a time.

To build the space colonies discussed, you would need ships a lot bigger than the current space shuttles. I’m talking big like container ship or oil supertanker big. A shuttles cargo bay is about the size of an 18 wheeler trailer. Imagine how expensive it would be to build a moderately sized building if each truckload of ANYTHING cost $1 billion.

Using rail guns to shoot stuff into orbit won’t work either. People and equipment don’t usually like being accelerated to 6000 g’s.

Columbus at least had boats large enough to carry a couple of hundred people and their supplies. They weren’t 800ft cargo ships, but he also didn’t have to worry that there wouldn’t be any food, water, air, or resources when he landed.

I don’t think we will EVER have orbiting colonies in space. It’s just too big a waste of resources and too dangerous. All it takes is a baseball size meteor traveling at orbital velocities and your station is blown all to hell. Not too mention that your population could never grow. Space stations will most likely be to space what research stations and oil rigs are to ocean research.

Forget terraforming Mars with arctic mold or hemp or crashing asteroids into the ice caps. Before we humans start colonizing Mars or Venus with anything other than a small science team, someone is going to have to invent:

  1. A reusable engine that can cheaply and cleanly lift very large ships and their cargo from Earth to another planet.

  2. A machine that can dramatically change the chemical composition of an entire planets atmosphere in a reasonable timeframe (as in decades, not centuries).

Regarding those who’ve suggested that it would be easier to establish colonies in Antarctica and/or the ocean:

I see your point. Any earthly habitat would be orders of magnitude easier to colonize than any known non-terrestrial one. But I think you are not paying enough attention to the question of incentives. That is, the reason why we are going to be founding a colony.

Simply put, there are things you can do in space that you can’t do on Earth, manufacturing processes enabled or greatly enhanced by the presence of microgravity and abundant hard vacuum.

Other posters are likely more knowledgeable about this subject than I am, but I do recall reading that there is a substance called gallium arsenide that would supposedly make a much better computer chip than silicon, but can only be manufactured in microgravity. Does anyone know more about this?

Also, there is the tourism aspect. We’ve seen that happen already, and I am sure there are more where Mr. Tito came from, and even if you don’t want to go all the way into orbit, I read another article somewhere (sorry I don’t have right here) about what could be the next extreme sport: spacediving.

And of course, as I believe someone else here mentioned, we are going to run out of resources here on Earth sooner or later. We might as well start looking for new sources now, and if we put the extraction industries in space, that will go a long way towards cleaning up our own atmosphere.

[hijack] Don’t you mean "Out of the Silent Planet? I’ve read all three books of that Lewis trilogy, and there seems to be considerable background story there that never gets spelled out. Do any of his other works go into it at all? I’d love to learn more about just who was supposed to be inhabiting the Moon.[/hijack]