Posted on 07/30/2018 3:44:07 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Science fiction writers have long featured terraforming, the process of creating an Earth-like or habitable environment on another planet, in their stories. Scientists themselves have proposed terraforming to enable the long-term colonization of Mars. A solution common to both groups is to release carbon dioxide gas trapped in the Martian surface to thicken the atmosphere and act as a blanket to warm the planet.
However, Mars does not retain enough carbon dioxide that could practically be put back into the atmosphere to warm Mars, according to a new NASA-sponsored study. Transforming the inhospitable Martian environment into a place astronauts could explore without life support is not possible without technology well beyond today’s capabilities.
Although the current Martian atmosphere itself consists mostly of carbon dioxide, it is far too thin and cold to support liquid water, an essential ingredient for life. On Mars, the pressure of the atmosphere is less than one percent of the pressure of Earth’s atmosphere. Any liquid water on the surface would very quickly evaporate or freeze.
Proponents of terraforming Mars propose releasing gases from a variety of sources on the Red Planet to thicken the atmosphere and increase the temperature to the point where liquid water is stable on the surface. These gases are called “greenhouse gases” for their ability to trap heat and warm the climate.
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are the only greenhouse gases that are likely to be present on Mars in sufficient abundance to provide any significant greenhouse warming,” said Bruce Jakosky of the University of Colorado, Boulder, lead author of the study appearing in Nature Astronomy July 30.
Although studies investigating the possibility of terraforming Mars have been made before, the new result takes advantage of about 20 years of additional spacecraft observations of Mars. “These data have provided substantial new information on the history of easily vaporized (volatile) materials like CO2 and H2O on the planet, the abundance of volatiles locked up on and below the surface, and the loss of gas from the atmosphere to space,” said co-author Christopher Edwards of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
The researchers analyzed the abundance of carbon-bearing minerals and the occurrence of CO2 in polar ice using data from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and used data on the loss of the Martian atmosphere to space by NASA’s MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) spacecraft.
“Our results suggest that there is not enough CO2 remaining on Mars to provide significant greenhouse warming were the gas to be put into the atmosphere; in addition, most of the CO2 gas is not accessible and could not be readily mobilized. As a result, terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology,” said Jakosky.
Although Mars has significant quantities of water ice that could be used to create water vapor, previous analyses show that water cannot provide significant warming by itself; temperatures do not allow enough water to persist as vapor without first having significant warming by CO2, according to the team. Also, while other gases such as the introduction of chloroflorocarbons or other fluorine-based compounds have been proposed to raise the atmospheric temperature, these gases are short-lived and would require large-scale manufacturing processes, so they were not considered in the current study.
The atmospheric pressure on Mars is around 0.6 percent of Earth’s. With Mars being further away from the Sun, researchers estimate a CO2 pressure similar to Earth’s total atmospheric pressure is needed to raise temperatures enough to allow for stable liquid water. The most accessible source is CO2 in the polar ice caps; it could be vaporized by spreading dust on it to absorb more solar radiation or by using explosives. However, vaporizing the ice caps would only contribute enough CO2 to double the Martian pressure to 1.2 percent of Earth’s, according to the new analysis.
Another source is CO2 attached to dust particles in Martian soil, which could be heated to release the gas. The researchers estimate that heating the soil could provide up to 4 percent of the needed pressure. A third source is carbon locked in mineral deposits. Using the recent NASA spacecraft observations of mineral deposits, the team estimates the most plausible amount will yield less than 5 percent of the required pressure, depending on how extensive deposits buried close to the surface may be. Just using the deposits near the surface would require extensive strip mining, and going after all the CO2 attached to dust particles would require strip mining the entire planet to a depth of around 100 yards. Even CO2 trapped in water-ice molecule structures, should such “clathrates” exist on Mars, would likely contribute less than 5 percent of the required pressure, according to the team.
Carbon-bearing minerals buried deep in the Martian crust might hold enough CO2 to reach the required pressure, but the extent of these deep deposits is unknown, not evidenced by orbital data, and recovering them with current technology is extremely energy intensive, requiring temperatures above 300 degrees Celsius (over 572 degrees Fahrenheit). Shallow carbon-bearing minerals are not sufficiently abundant to contribute significantly to greenhouse warming, and also require the same intense processing.
Although the surface of Mars is inhospitable to known forms of life today, features that resemble dry riverbeds and mineral deposits that only form in the presence of liquid water provide evidence that, in the distant past, the Martian climate supported liquid water at the surface. But solar radiation and solar wind can remove both water vapor and CO2 from the Martian atmosphere. Both MAVEN and the European Space Agency’s Mars Express missions indicate that the majority of Mars’ ancient, potentially habitable atmosphere has been lost to space, stripped away by solar wind and radiation. Of course, once this happens, that water and CO2 are gone forever. Even if this loss were prevented somehow, allowing the atmosphere to build up slowly from outgassing by geologic activity, current outgassing is extremely low; it would take about 10 million years just to double Mars’ current atmosphere, according to the team.
Another idea is to import volatiles by redirecting comets and asteroids to hit Mars. However, the team’s calculations reveal that many thousands would be required; again, not very practical.
Taken together, the results indicate that terraforming Mars cannot be done with currently available technology. Any such efforts have to be very far into the future.
This research was supported in part by NASA through the MAVEN and Mars Odyssey THEMIS (Thermal Emission Imaging System) projects.
Bill Steigerwald / Nancy Jones
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
301-286-8955 / 301-286-0039
william.a.steigerwald@nasa.gov / nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov
Master Image Caption: This is an artist's model of an early Mars — billions of years ago — which may have had oceans and a thicker atmosphere. It was created by filling Mars' lower altitudes with water and adding cloud cover. The locations for the ancient ocean are based on current altitudes and do not reflect the actual ancient topography. It can be downloaded here: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/13016
Credit: NASA/MAVEN/Lunar and Planetary Institute
Start small... if we’re gonna be there anyhow there’s no reason not try.
include the damned Islamics with the commies and you got a deal
Ok, but they’re not going to let Ocacio-Cortez be president.
Uh, sorry - perhaps my question was unclear: By “where?” what I’m asking is: Where is this 10k Gauss field measured? At the surface of the inflatable generator? (And how big is that generator?)
What I’m getting at is that 10k Gauss would be an incredible field to generate if it was being produced by an electromagnet as “small” as, oh, say, 20 miles in “radiating” diameter. That, I believe, is almost “enough”. (If we assume we only need a field density of 0.1 Gauss at an Earth radius of approximately 3960 miles, then if I calculated inverse-square correctly, that’s almost 16 kGauss @ 10 miles radius.)
This is admittedly easier than shoving a good size moon near to Mars to siphon off water in, oh, say 100 years or so trip time, but, it is still one heck of a magnet...
So even trying we can’t increase the greenhouse effect on a planetary scale on Mars. Yet we’re supposed to believe that we’re doing it incidentally on Earth.
While searching the web regarding this, I came across a very interesting (and LONG!) series of articles regarding planetary atmospheric (and other) development, and related subjects.
This is the link for Chapter 11 — sort of a “summary”, I suppose.
http://www.dinosaurtheory.com/rocks_fossils.html
Now, there are some holes in this guy’s theories (aside from some FReepers’ dismissal of Earth’s age and evolution in general — although said FReepers should perhaps read the section about Punctuated Equilibrium. “PE” makes a GREAT deal of sense, though I think the author overstates the case when he says a new species can easily evolve in “a few dozen generations” to adjust to environmental stress. If that were the case, surely by now researchers could have evolved, say, a new species of mouse, and so far as I know, that has not been accomplished?)
I am myself very dubious of the idea that Earth’s atmosphere at the surface was 2/3 the density of water during the era of the dinosaurs, or even “several times thicker” than our present atmosphere as recently as 6 million years ago. The author postulates this would have been mostly due to increased CO2 - I’ve nowhere seen data suggesting such incredible levels of CO2 at any time in the last 500 million years or more.
Moreover, his graph shows Earth’s atmospheric pressures over double those of Venus as recently as 50 million years ago — this is NOT a matter of variations in trace amounts of CO2 — Earth would be hotter than Venus is at present!
Thanks!
“Where is this 10k Gauss field measured?”
My reading of the article was that the 10K to 20K Gauss strength of the field would be measured at the generating station, at the L1 point.
They also mentioned that it would be about 1.6 times the strength of Earth’s magnetic field (again I assume, measured at the point of generation).
These were just the results of modeling what the requirements would be for a magnetic shield of Mars. Actually building such a device would be monumental. 20 miles across however, seems actually feasible - like building a Panama Canal in space.
For materials, it would require a huge amount of lift to boost them from Earth, less for Mars, but even less if we could find a suitable asteroid.
They mention an inflatable structure to be used to generate the field, so that seems fundamentally different that the massive metallic magnet which I am envisioning. Perhaps they envision inducing the magnetic field with a huge current, powered by nuclear reactors.
How much electric current do you think it would it require to generate such a field?
I thought it was not possible, not a strong enough magnetic field? Or is that de-bunked now?
“where (will) the nitrogen component will come from, if the atmosphere is not to be essentially O2 plus CO2.”
Even if the atmosphere is not breathable by non-genetically modified humans, just having the pressure of an atmosphere could allow people to get around with lighter equipment, like a scuba mask and backpack re-breather, rather than heavier/bulkier dry suit style full pressure suits, like astronauts. It would also ease the design considerations and emergency equipment required to protect against leaks or breaches of buildings on Mars.
As it is, the pressure differential would kill people before they would suffocate. It is almost the vacuum of space - less than 1% of Earth pressure.
More significantly, it might allow open agriculture or forestry, as a method of generating a variety of resources. Crops might need nitrogen, but they might also play a role in sequestering nitrogen - possibly using specially created plants, algae or fungi.
Also, even if the atmosphere is not breathable, it would have a strong effect in moderating the wide daily temperature swings that must be dealt with - currently a 170 degree F daily range on average. Like the pressure, such temperature specs require a whole host of expensive/difficult/dangerous structural design requirements and specialized equipment.
The electromagnetic shield in orbit concept described in other posts, could also reduce one of the other challenging global environmental factors on Mars - radiation.
If temperature, pressure, radiation and moisture were made Earthlike, those would be big steps in easing life support generally.
.
So, you are saying that you do not believe the word of Yehova?
He promises to save us and to destroy the universe.
He often saves us through, in whole or part, our acts, effort
.
Pipe dreams are more realistic than your suggestions.
.
The only personal effort that contributes to our salvation is belief. (IOW faithful obedience to Torah, as explained by James)
All else is “filthy rags.”
.
As you say, James. — Please See James 2:14–26. Thank you. ——————————————————————————————————-James 2:14-26 New King James Version (NKJV)
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
As you say, James. — Please See James 2:14–26. Thank you. ——————————————————————————————————-James 2:14-26 New King James Version (NKJV)
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
No problem, just "tax the rich." That solves everything, right?
Also one of the Martian moons is due to auger in at some point. Not sure which one. That would be a fly in the ointment.
Thanks colorado tanker. If we pay for it, it's ours. Period.
There's gold and silver in the asteroids, titanium as well, rare earths -- we should be well on the way to coining US gold/silver currency in space, fabricating ablative-shielded reentry shuttles, and landing a few trillion in US coin. With an unexpectedly low face value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
