Talk:Terraforming - Revision history

Farred: Re: "Bioforming"

2013-01-08T19:05:41Z

Re: "Bioforming"

81.86.46.201 at 19:00, 3 January 2013

2013-01-03T19:00:52Z

Farred: /* How much must be added to the atmosphere for terraforming? */ talk

2013-01-02T03:04:05Z

How much must be added to the atmosphere for terraforming?: talk

Spriditis: Undo revision 6074 by 188.92.75.244 (Talk) vandalism

2011-11-05T14:25:10Z

Undo revision 6074 by 188.92.75.244 (Talk) vandalism

188.92.75.244: /* v i a g r a canada */ new section

2011-11-04T23:07:36Z

v i a g r a canada: new section

Spriditis: Undo revision 5637 by 144.177.50.6 (Talk) Restoring deletion

2011-07-06T00:48:17Z

Undo revision 5637 by 144.177.50.6 (Talk) Restoring deletion

144.177.50.6: /* aoabmWPghIqySa */ new section

2011-07-05T12:18:59Z

aoabmWPghIqySa: new section

T.Neo at 15:47, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T15:47:32Z

T.Neo at 15:47, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T15:47:05Z

T.Neo at 15:46, 12 April 2011

2011-04-12T15:46:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 8 January 2013
Line 39:		Line 39:
	==Bioforming==(think this is the correct term)		==Bioforming==(think this is the correct term)

−	perhaps a compromise solution would be to make humans a bit more tolerant to co2 and low pressures not feasible for short term missions but might be interesting for medium to long term stays.	+	perhaps a compromise solution would be to make humans a bit more tolerant to co2 and low pressures not feasible for short term missions but might be interesting for medium to long term stays. - <small>The above comment was added by internet protocol address 81.86.46.201 on the 3rd of January at 19:00 hours UTC.</small>
		+
		+	==Re: "Bioforming"==
		+	The ordinary concentration of CO<sub>2</sub> is currently about 0.38 millibar. The suggestion above to make people more tolerant of CO<sub>2</sub> would require tolerance of 400 millibar of CO<sub>2</sub> to be beneficial. At 10 millibar people begin to feel drowsiness. At 100 millibar CO<sub>2</sub> people suffer dizziness, headache, unconsciousness and eventually death. Biologically altering people to tolerate 400 millibar of CO<sub>2</sub> would be quite a bit of a change. Surgery to correct for nearsightedness is something I would consider within the range of potentially acceptable. Biologically altering people to tolerate CO<sub>2</sub> I would not consider. Wearing a suit or just a face mask connected to a CO<sub>2</sub> scrubbing system could protect from CO<sub>2</sub>. It would be considerably less trouble and expense than a space suit such as required for the current atmosphere of Mars. However, such a condition on Mars would be noticeably inferior to Earth. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:00, 3 January 2013
Line 36:		Line 36:

	:If instead of terraforming Mars settlers strip mine it and send the material into space to make habitats, trillions of people could be supported from the stuff of Mars. So if supporting more people is T.Neo's concern, strip mining Mars down to the core should be the favored process. As far as economic mass shipment to orbit, [http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Eddy_Current_Brake_to_Orbit this] is one of many technologies that might solve the problem. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)		:If instead of terraforming Mars settlers strip mine it and send the material into space to make habitats, trillions of people could be supported from the stuff of Mars. So if supporting more people is T.Neo's concern, strip mining Mars down to the core should be the favored process. As far as economic mass shipment to orbit, [http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Eddy_Current_Brake_to_Orbit this] is one of many technologies that might solve the problem. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Bioforming==(think this is the correct term)
		+
		+	perhaps a compromise solution would be to make humans a bit more tolerant to co2 and low pressures not feasible for short term missions but might be interesting for medium to long term stays.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 2 January 2013
Line 28:		Line 28:

	People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)		People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	:T.Neo wrote that "you don't want something as stupid as flying Edmund Fitzgeralds to Mars." I agree. I never suggested doing such a thing. The "170 Edmund Fitzgerald cargo mass equivalents" I referred to above were just a way to present the suggested amount of greenhouse gas in a way that might be familiar to some readers. Of course it would need to be manufactured on Mars. That is a difficulty that requires a self reproducing industrial economy on Mars like the one we had on Earth from 1850 to 1912. That self reproducing economy included the people who were workers supporting it. The needed economy on Mars could not be based on burning coal like the Earthly example but would be similar in the characteristic of self reproduction. From the industrial equipment that can be sent to Mars from Earth, it would require quite a few doubling times before the "878 tons per hour" that McKay calls for would be available. To go from 100 settlers to 200,000,000 settlers would require about 21 doublings. Maybe that is required before the intended release of greenhouse gasses is practical. If the doubling time is 25 years, that is 525 years. There will be a long time of living in underground shelters with a near vacuum outside before terraforming begins. I had a reference for the formation of carbonate rocks from the CO<sub>2</sub> in lake water dissolving minerals from the lake bottom and depositing carbonates, but I lost that issue of Scientific American. I might find it again or a better reference. Anyway it was suggested that sulfur dioxide in the lake water would reduce the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide. That might take care of the problem. I do not accept the statement that since depositing CO<sub>2</sub> as carbonates in Earth's seas took on the order of a hundred million years a similar process on Mars would take as long. Reaction rates are proportional to a function of concentrations. McKay suggested 400 millibar of CO<sub>2</sub> on Mars as opposed to 0.38 millibar on Earth, a thousand times higher concentration on Mars than on Earth. The reaction taking out the CO<sub>2</sub> ought to go much faster on Mars. This is something I can look up, but I do not know if I will ever get it done well enough to add to the article. The important point is that the thousand times higher concentration of carbon dioxide is what is needed for terraforming on Mars and that is just the thing that greatly increases the removal of carbon dioxide.
		+
		+	:T.Neo also wrote about "the waste products of single-celled organisms billions of years ago" changing the environment on Earth. On Mars the changes required to have liquid water would have to come first, then single-celled organisms might have their chance to do something.
		+
		+	:T.Neo also wrote that the 400 millibar CO<sub>2</sub> should be replaced with oxygen and nitrogen. A problem with that is that once the 400 millibar CO<sub>2</sub> is gone Mars freezes again unless T.Neo is thinking of a different way of warming the planet. Then the 400 millibar carbon dioxide would never have been needed in the first place.
		+
		+	:If instead of terraforming Mars settlers strip mine it and send the material into space to make habitats, trillions of people could be supported from the stuff of Mars. So if supporting more people is T.Neo's concern, strip mining Mars down to the core should be the favored process. As far as economic mass shipment to orbit, [http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Eddy_Current_Brake_to_Orbit this] is one of many technologies that might solve the problem. - [[User:Farred\|Farred]] 03:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 5 November 2011
Line 28:		Line 28:

	People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)		People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
−
−	~~== v i a g r a canada ==~~
−
−	~~How do you play Barcelona in this year?~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 4 November 2011
Line 28:		Line 28:

	People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)		People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== v i a g r a canada ==
		+
		+	How do you play Barcelona in this year?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 6 July 2011
Line 28:		Line 28:

	People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)		People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
−
−	~~== aoabmWPghIqySa ==~~
−
−	~~Super informative wrintig; keep it up.~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 5 July 2011
Line 28:		Line 28:

	People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)		People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== aoabmWPghIqySa ==
		+
		+	Super informative wrintig; keep it up.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :::Thank you, Rfc, for the encouragement.  I will look into moving information from the talk page into the article.  I will try to do it right.  --[[User:Farred|Farred]] 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 Of course something will be futile, if people see only problems and deny the possibility of solutions.
 Obviously you don't want something as stupid as flying Edmund Fitzgeralds to Mars. You want to rely primarily on local resources, and only import volatiles if needed- which would be quite difficult, even with advanced technology.
 It isn't impossible to change things on a planetary scale. We're doing it right now, and we've been changing the landscape of the Earth for thousands of years already. Of course, this is different from creating a whole new planetary biosphere, but it shows that humans are by far, not insignificant. Life has the power to change an environment- in fact, the whole reason we exist, the reason why the ecological diversity and habitable environment of Earth exists- is because of the waste products of single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Their evolution was so instrumental in the history of life- their force so significant, that they overturned the chemistry of the atmosphere and lead to a huge extinction of life, and led the way for the environment we see today.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 12 April 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Obviously you don't want something as stupid as flying Edmund Fitzgeralds to Mars. You want to rely primarily on local resources, and only import volatiles if needed- which would be quite difficult, even with advanced technology.		Obviously you don't want something as stupid as flying Edmund Fitzgeralds to Mars. You want to rely primarily on local resources, and only import volatiles if needed- which would be quite difficult, even with advanced technology.
		+

	It isn't impossible to change things on a planetary scale. We're doing it right now, and we've been changing the landscape of the Earth for thousands of years already. Of course, this is different from creating a whole new planetary biosphere, but it shows that humans are by far, not insignificant. Life has the power to change an environment- in fact, the whole reason we exist, the reason why the ecological diversity and habitable environment of Earth exists- is because of the waste products of single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Their evolution was so instrumental in the history of life- their force so significant, that they overturned the chemistry of the atmosphere and lead to a huge extinction of life, and led the way for the environment we see today.		It isn't impossible to change things on a planetary scale. We're doing it right now, and we've been changing the landscape of the Earth for thousands of years already. Of course, this is different from creating a whole new planetary biosphere, but it shows that humans are by far, not insignificant. Life has the power to change an environment- in fact, the whole reason we exist, the reason why the ecological diversity and habitable environment of Earth exists- is because of the waste products of single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Their evolution was so instrumental in the history of life- their force so significant, that they overturned the chemistry of the atmosphere and lead to a huge extinction of life, and led the way for the environment we see today.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 12 April 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:::Thank you, Rfc, for the encouragement. I will look into moving information from the talk page into the article. I will try to do it right. --[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)		:::Thank you, Rfc, for the encouragement. I will look into moving information from the talk page into the article. I will try to do it right. --[[User:Farred\|Farred]] 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	Of course something will be futile, if people see only problems and deny the possibility of solutions.
		+
		+	Obviously you don't want something as stupid as flying Edmund Fitzgeralds to Mars. You want to rely primarily on local resources, and only import volatiles if needed- which would be quite difficult, even with advanced technology.
		+
		+	It isn't impossible to change things on a planetary scale. We're doing it right now, and we've been changing the landscape of the Earth for thousands of years already. Of course, this is different from creating a whole new planetary biosphere, but it shows that humans are by far, not insignificant. Life has the power to change an environment- in fact, the whole reason we exist, the reason why the ecological diversity and habitable environment of Earth exists- is because of the waste products of single-celled organisms billions of years ago. Their evolution was so instrumental in the history of life- their force so significant, that they overturned the chemistry of the atmosphere and lead to a huge extinction of life, and led the way for the environment we see today.
		+
		+	The key to terraforming Mars is to do the most with the least. For example, by manufacturing highly efficient greenhouse gases from local resources, tipping the balance and outgassing more CO2.
		+
		+	I seriously doubt that minor fluvial activity will completely sequester a 400-500 millibar CO2 atmosphere into carbonates over human timescales. Indeed if this can occur at such a rapid rate, Earth's active hydrosphere should have sequestered CO2 at a much faster rate than it has in reality, or it should have least offset anthropogenic CO2 increase.
		+
		+	If you want a vaguely Earth-like environment, you won't want 400 millibars of CO2 ''anyway''. You'll need to replace that with oxygen (so animals and higher plants can breathe) and add nitrogen (so things don't spontaneously combust, and so some organisms have an atmospheric source of N2). Those two things are pretty much the hardest part of Martian terraforming- you'll need to seperate the oxygen from the carbon and... store the carbon away somewhere, while putting enough nitrogen into the atmosphere (nitrogen is unfortunately pretty sparse on Mars, but there are indications of nitrates in regolith, and concentrations which might increase as you dig down from the surface, though presumably it isn't the easiest thing to liberate this from the regolith).
		+
		+	What most people forget is that terraforming is an ongoing process- you may have a habitable planet, but you need to maintain it. On Earth, we're lucky enough that the natural setup happens to do this automatically, but on Mars, the global environment would need more attention- obviously things would be set up to be as self sustaining as possible, but this can't be done for everything.
		+
		+	"The money would be better off spent on a colony" makes absolutely no sense. For one, terraforming is many orders of magnitude more demanding than a colony, and offers orders of magnitude more returns. Yes, terraforming is very difficult, and it's a gargantuan task, but a properly terraformed Mars could support ''billions'' of people. A large colony could support maybe a million people, and by then, it would be the size of a city- a very large colony indeed.
		+
		+	People on Mars would by far have it harder in the default, harsh environment, than they would on a planet where they would not freeze and asphyxiate upon exiting a habitat. Even a Mars with a thicker CO2 atmosphere would be more hospitable to human operations. [[User:T.Neo\|T.Neo]] 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)