Elon Musk says he will put millions of people on Mars.
It would take hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years for the solar wind to remove the outgassed atmosphere. Thats probably how mars loss its native atmosphere to begin with. During pole reversals the earth's magnetic field fails for some period (maybe millenia?) Solar wind more intense than mars's obviously does not blow away our air because the time period isn't long enough(& yes our gravity is stronger). So our colonists would have 100's of thousands of years to either figure out how to replace the lost air or look into creating some sort of planetary wide superconducting cables in orbit around mars to simulate the effect of a natural magnetic field, or both or some other idea. In any case my idea win lose or draw we have results in decades. Your idea you have rendered mars useless and uninhabitable for millenia even if it works.Skipjack wrote:[You understand the scales that we are talking about there, right?
It is often amazing to me how people can underestimate planetary scales.
Also, without a magnetic field, the solar wind will quickly "blow" away that little atmosphere that you are producing there. My concept was about giving mars' tectonics a slight kick in the hope of increasing the magnetic field a bit. For this you need a deep impact.
I also mentioned an alternative concept that would use multiple smaller impacts of icy asteroids or impacts of smaller rocky asteroids into existing ice fields on Mars to create an atmosphere of some sorts on it (with green house gases etc). But even with that solution (which is not my idea, but was proposed in several serious studies on mars colonization and terraforming), I doubt you would want to be there, when it happens. So again, large scale colonization does not make sense prior to terraforming.
The second solution would also only be temporary until the solar wind ruins everything again. I honestly dont know how long that would take then. Probably hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions depending on how dense the created atmosphere was to begin with.
The question is of course. What do you do with a fully populated Mars that is about to become uninhabitable due to loss of atmosphere? You cant simply drop more asteroids into a densly populated planet. So what is the backup plan for this?
Certainly lots of things to think about.
Moon makes much more sense for first colonization attempts. Mars in its current state has almost no advantage over the moon. It is only much further away. You would still have to employ almost all the same techniques on both bodies (underground structures, etc). The moon is much easier to reach though and that makes it much more interesting for the near term. Still, whether it is mars or moon, you need to get to LEO first.
I would say that depends on how dense it is...It would take hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years for the solar wind to remove the outgassed atmosphere.
Also dont forget that the magnetic field also serves the purpose of protection from radiation.
Either way, the second option that I provided (many small impacts) is a seriously considered option and it too would mean that Mars would not be a pleasent place to stay at, at least for a while.
I still dont get the objection towards colonization of the moon first.
What I read years ago suggested that it would be thick enough, with huge amounts of out-gassed CO2 and water vapor to make the surface temperature and pressure earth like with liquid water on the surface. That sounds very thick. Don't object to colonizing the moon--you can do both at the same time. One group goes to the moon another to mars, perhaps others go the space colony route. Don't care leave that up to the people doing it to decide, another advantage of it being done privately. Don't like the idea of any gov agency deciding what it thinks is best for how to do it and imposing it on the rest of us.Skipjack wrote:I would say that depends on how dense it is...It would take hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years for the solar wind to remove the outgassed atmosphere.
Also dont forget that the magnetic field also serves the purpose of protection from radiation.
Either way, the second option that I provided (many small impacts) is a seriously considered option and it too would mean that Mars would not be a pleasent place to stay at, at least for a while.
I still dont get the objection towards colonization of the moon first.
And how do you get those? I suggested bombardement with small asteroids, which is what a study on the topic suggested too. Better than nuclear explosions due to radioactive fallout and stuff, probably cheaper and more effective as well.with huge amounts of out-gassed CO2 and water vapor to make the surface temperature and pressure earth like with liquid water on the surface
From earlier posting:Skipjack wrote:And how do you get those? I suggested bombardement with small asteroids, which is what a study on the topic suggested too. Better than nuclear explosions due to radioactive fallout and stuff, probably cheaper and more effective as well.with huge amounts of out-gassed CO2 and water vapor to make the surface temperature and pressure earth like with liquid water on the surface
This might interest you: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2008 ... -24-01.asp Quoting: A gas used in manufacture of flat panel televisions, computer displays, microcircuits, and thin-film solar panels is 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and it is far more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated. The powerful greenhouse gas nitrogen trifluoride, NF3, is at least four times more widespread than scientists had believed, according to new research by a team at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.
17000X times CO2 at trapping solar heat means a relatively small amount of it manufactured on Mars and outgassed into the atmosphere would warm up the planet enough to cause the massive amounts CO2 and water at the poles and permafrost to start outgassing. It would cause a runaway greenhouse effect on Mars. I am essentially letting the sun do the heavy lifting as far as warming up the planet.
really not my idea forgive me for suggesting such: http://www.redcolony.com/art.php?id=0101050
From the posted link: Author Kim Stanley Robinson, has plans that could change the face of the Red Planet within a mere sixty years. He envisions a line of factories scatted across Mars such as those described above. Each one would have the power of a large nuclear plant, and could process tons of regolith into PFCs, or perfluorocarbons.
James Lovelock, a British atmospheric scientist who is best known for his Gaia hypothesis, first suggested the use of PFCs to heat Mars. These super-greenhouse gases trap solar energy so well, in fact, that they are causing global warming here on Earth.
There are many positive qualities to PFCs however. They are 100% environmentally safe, since they are chlorine-free and do not contain any toxins. Also, PFCs are easy to make. They can be produced using simple molecules of carbon, sulfur, and fluorine which are all abundant on Mars. Dr. Christopher McKay, a research biologist at NASA Ames, suggests using CF4 and C2F6, and other compounds such as SF6. These compounds absorb thermal radiation efficiently and would have long lifetimes, maybe hundreds of years. Finally, PFCs are relatively inexpensive. Building colossal space mirrors or releasing nuclear warheads within the southern ice cap would cost trillions of dollars. Sunlight is free and generates more energy in 30 minutes than if all the nuclear warheads in existence exploded at once. Thus, PFCs are the best option for terraforming.
Computer calculations performed by myself, Owen B. Toon and James F. Kasting suggest that if Mars's atmosphere contained just a few parts per million of the super-greenhouse gases, the average temperature at the planet's surface would rise from -60 to -40 degrees Celsius (-76 to -40 degrees Fahrenheit). This warming could be enough to trigger the release of carbon dioxide from the polar caps and soil into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide would then augment the greenhouse effect even further, driving the release of more carbon dioxide and water vapor into the atmosphere. Such positive feedback would be sufficient to create a thick, warm atmosphere--the carbon dioxide Mars. - Dr. Christopher McKay
To bring "just a few parts per million" of PFCs to the Red Planet would be a monumental task, both expensive and time-consuming. We must manufacture PFCs on Mars from the materials on the planet; there is no other practical way. Super-greenhouse gas producing factories could easily be sent to Mars on unmanned missions annually where they could begin pumping PFCs from regolith. Then, when the temperature has risen a few degrees Celsius, gas producing bacteria might be released planet-wide to accelerate the process.
McKay suggests that the entire PFC process will take a mere 100 years before average global temperatures reach an Earthly level. This number is such good news that scientists who were once skeptical of the concept of terraforming now look forward to the day when they can take part in it. And that day may be closer than anyone might imagine
From the posted link: Author Kim Stanley Robinson, has plans that could change the face of the Red Planet within a mere sixty years. He envisions a line of factories scatted across Mars such as those described above. Each one would have the power of a large nuclear plant, and could process tons of regolith into PFCs, or perfluorocarbons.
James Lovelock, a British atmospheric scientist who is best known for his Gaia hypothesis, first suggested the use of PFCs to heat Mars. These super-greenhouse gases trap solar energy so well, in fact, that they are causing global warming here on Earth.
There are many positive qualities to PFCs however. They are 100% environmentally safe, since they are chlorine-free and do not contain any toxins. Also, PFCs are easy to make. They can be produced using simple molecules of carbon, sulfur, and fluorine which are all abundant on Mars. Dr. Christopher McKay, a research biologist at NASA Ames, suggests using CF4 and C2F6, and other compounds such as SF6. These compounds absorb thermal radiation efficiently and would have long lifetimes, maybe hundreds of years. Finally, PFCs are relatively inexpensive. Building colossal space mirrors or releasing nuclear warheads within the southern ice cap would cost trillions of dollars. Sunlight is free and generates more energy in 30 minutes than if all the nuclear warheads in existence exploded at once. Thus, PFCs are the best option for terraforming.
Computer calculations performed by myself, Owen B. Toon and James F. Kasting suggest that if Mars's atmosphere contained just a few parts per million of the super-greenhouse gases, the average temperature at the planet's surface would rise from -60 to -40 degrees Celsius (-76 to -40 degrees Fahrenheit). This warming could be enough to trigger the release of carbon dioxide from the polar caps and soil into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide would then augment the greenhouse effect even further, driving the release of more carbon dioxide and water vapor into the atmosphere. Such positive feedback would be sufficient to create a thick, warm atmosphere--the carbon dioxide Mars. - Dr. Christopher McKay
To bring "just a few parts per million" of PFCs to the Red Planet would be a monumental task, both expensive and time-consuming. We must manufacture PFCs on Mars from the materials on the planet; there is no other practical way. Super-greenhouse gas producing factories could easily be sent to Mars on unmanned missions annually where they could begin pumping PFCs from regolith. Then, when the temperature has risen a few degrees Celsius, gas producing bacteria might be released planet-wide to accelerate the process.
McKay suggests that the entire PFC process will take a mere 100 years before average global temperatures reach an Earthly level. This number is such good news that scientists who were once skeptical of the concept of terraforming now look forward to the day when they can take part in it. And that day may be closer than anyone might imagine
Well Chris McKay and the other scientists seem to think so: They can be produced using simple molecules of carbon, sulfur, and fluorine which are all abundant on Mars. Dr. Christopher McKay, a research biologist at NASA Ames, suggests using CF4 and C2F6, and other compounds such as SF6Skipjack wrote:Yeah, sure. Hey all we need is a few factories spread all over mars and then we will cause a super green house effect. Mhmmm... It is all so simple! Why didnt I think of that?
...planetary scale...
sigh...
Are the ingredients for that gas even present in the marsian regolith?
Though for NF3 you would obviously need Nitrogen as well, think that is abundant on mars too. Cheerup Skipjack..sure there will be other planets you get to bomb with asteroids/comets.
Let's examine that.... just a few parts per million of the super-greenhouse gases ...
The Mars Atmosphere is 25 teratonnes, according to Wikipedia, so 1 part per million would be 25 million tonnes. Let's say that you have 25 factories in production. If each factory produced roughly -
3 tonnes per day- about 1000 tonnes per Earth year, 1000 years for 1 million tonnes
30 tonnes per day- about 10,000 tonnes per Earth year, 100 years for 1 million tonnes
300 tonnes per day - about 100,000 tonnes per Earth year, 10 years.
Now, is 1 part per million enough, or do we need 10 or 100 parts per million? How much mass needs come from Earth for each factory?
I wrote, "Let's examine that." I've examined, my conclusion is that a planet is a big place. Now, you examine. I await your conclusions.
Aero
Hey, I am willing to learn new stuff and new info is always good. But this does seem to me like they are underestimating the size of an entire planet. Think of the entire industry and transportation of earth and what it has really done to the climate here (very little). I mean, all the green house gasses on earth (including the ones they are proposing which are present here as well and by far not all are manmade either) have managed to raise the temperature so little that people are still arguing about the temperature increase being actually true.
Even if these proposed gasses are 16000 times are efficient, one would need the equivalent of about 1 million fully industrialized people (and the equivalent of their factories and transportation) to even make a small dent in the temperature on mars. One would probably need even more to actually cause the runaway effect that was predicted there. It would take thousands of these factories and an infra structure to supply them with raw materials to do all this.
Even if these proposed gasses are 16000 times are efficient, one would need the equivalent of about 1 million fully industrialized people (and the equivalent of their factories and transportation) to even make a small dent in the temperature on mars. One would probably need even more to actually cause the runaway effect that was predicted there. It would take thousands of these factories and an infra structure to supply them with raw materials to do all this.
I would conclude you would have to do better than 300 tons per day more like 3000 tons per day. Sounds like big factories(and/or more of them), hopefully made as much as possible from martian construction material. Might also imagine if there is a colony already present, you might try to pick a favorable spot to build the factories. Some place that gets more sunlight than the poles, a crater, valley or depression with lots of frozen CO2 in the regolith. Hoping to get a local concentration of NF3 much higher than the planetary average.Aero wrote:Let's examine that.... just a few parts per million of the super-greenhouse gases ...
The Mars Atmosphere is 25 teratonnes, according to Wikipedia, so 1 part per million would be 25 million tonnes. Let's say that you have 25 factories in production. If each factory produced roughly -
3 tonnes per day- about 1000 tonnes per Earth year, 1000 years for 1 million tonnes
30 tonnes per day- about 10,000 tonnes per Earth year, 100 years for 1 million tonnes
300 tonnes per day - about 100,000 tonnes per Earth year, 10 years.
Now, is 1 part per million enough, or do we need 10 or 100 parts per million? How much mass needs come from Earth for each factory?
I wrote, "Let's examine that." I've examined, my conclusion is that a planet is a big place. Now, you examine. I await your conclusions.