Re: How to really terraform (part 1)

From: sanman (manofsan_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 06/14/04 

Date: 14 Jun 2004 11:12:12 -0700

k_over_hbarc@yahoo.com (Andrew Usher) wrote in message news:<6e197594.0406122144.39b65632@posting.google.com>...
> We must transport that amount of ice from the poles to the equator,
> forever.
> If we build solar-powered trucks that can carry 200 Klb ice, and these
> can make one round trip every 40 days (this is a speed of 10-12 mph
> average), then they deliver 5 Klb/d. We would then need 80 million
> such trucks. This seems to be a tall order. Note, though, that any
> conceivable terraforming scheme must address this issue as ice will
> always accumulate at the poles. A northern ocean may eventually solve
> half the problem (via icebergs), but the southern hemisphere's terrain
> prohibits it.

What about using geothermal energy (marso-thermal energy?) to melt
polar ice and pipe it down towards the equator? I'd like to mention
that ice can be viably transported by pipeline in slurry form. Natural
gas companies are investigating pipeline transport of methane hydrate
as a slurry, for example.

Ice-liquid slurry exists at lower temperature, so you wouldn't have to
heat it as much to get to that state. The natural motion of transport
should generate enough heat to maintain the liquid portion of the
slurry, although perhaps the pipeline could be pressurized slightly.

> Once we have done this, a large part of the terraforming problem is
> solved. Mars is now warm enough for liquid water to exist during the
> summer in some places, and some oxygen will be liberated by the
> decomposition of peroxides in the soil by water. Lakes will form in
> low points, though frozen most of the year. If possible,
> photosynthetic bacteria should be introduced now.

I don't see why bacteria can't be introduced right from the start, if
you maintain them in oasis-like habitats rather than expecting them to
flourish everywhere. The simpler the life-form the better, since
complexity seems to require more energy and nutrients.

>
> Whether they can or not, another problem is the relative lack of N2
> and O2 in the air. This can be addressed by finding deposits of
> nitrates, which must exist if there has ever been liquid water (and,
> almost certainly, there has). Bacteria should be employed to decompose
> nitrates, but, if they still can not survive, mechanical means must
> do. Solar-thermal furnaces seem to be the best bet. Sodium nitrate
> will not decompose if heated by itself, so it shall be intimately
> mixed with silica-rich rocks. This enables exothermic decomposition.
>
> In whichever order these have been done, there will now be an
> increasing quantity of N2 and O2 in the air, a hydrological cycle, and
> photosynthesis slowly reducing the excessive CO2 concentration.
>
> The next step is to plant trees, which are far more effective in
> sequestering carbon. There will now be sufficient N2, O2, and water in
> certain places; the obstacle here is the soil requirements. I have no
> real knowledge here, but I believe soil can be imported from Earth in
> the quantities needed for the trees (the necessary transportation will
> be practical at this point).
>
> When the pressure reaches 200 mb (anywhere on Mars) it becomes
> possible to go outside with bottled oxygen only, and lose the space
> suits - a large convenience, and doubtless an incentive to further
> colonisation.

But doesn't Mars' lighter gravity means it will bleed off any excess
atmosphere faster than you can replace it?

>
> I will leave the rest to part 2, which I will post a week from today.
> But first, a word on the concept of terraforming.
>
> There seems to be a large contingent in space exploration (not,
> apparently, on this newsgroup) that opposes terraforming for
> ecological reasons. In my opinion, such people can not be reasoned
> with and must be simply ignored. Their belief flies in the face of
> Man's history. From the beginning of civilisation, we have been
> modifying our environment. This is, in fact, the key distinction
> between the primitive and us: the savage, like the animals, adapts
> himself to his environment, while civilised man modifies the things
> around him to fit his desires. There is no way around this: if you
> reject environmental modification, you can only live in the stone age.
> (To people that don't believe in this nonsense, this paragraph likely
> sounded trite and ridiculous.)
>
> Andrew Usher

I think that the eco-nuts feels that we cannot disturb the pristine
flora and fauna of the Moon or Mars -- never mind that they may not
exist. I'd say give a reasonable amount of time to find some life on
Mars, and after that to hell with it, we have to start seeding our
own, even if it out-competes the native life.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast