Terraform Moon With Earths Excess Co2

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by cat2only, Dec 26, 2010.

  1. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    Shoot dry ice inside projectiles to the Moon with Rail Gun Technology to lower atmospheric Co2 on Earth to that of pre- industrial revolution values of 250ppm. If the 1/6 gravity of the moon can hold the Co2 to the Surface then an atmosphere can be formed and then seeds,water and nutrients can be added to start growing plants to make oxygen.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bW0UWQh5Lk
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,254
    I don't think the moons gravity is strong enough to hold an atmosphere - at least one dense enough to host terran life forms. Also, the moon always presents the same side to the sun, as I recall, so it is sorta hot in some places and sorta cold in the others.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    When that chunk of CO2 is fired through the atmosphere at high velocity, friction will evaporate it as it passes through the atmosphere long before it escapes the gravity well. Additionally, it takes a lot of energy to collect and freeze the CO2 in the first place.

    There are plans and full scale models of lunar 'greenhouses' to grow plants there for later human consumption and air purification. They will be buried though, to protect them from the hard radiation from the sun and outer space. Solar power will likely be used to power them.

    Any terra - forming of the moon will be contained environments - buildings, caverns and/or domed craters where atmosphere can be contained and maintained to support terran life forms.

    NASA is seriously proposing the use of rail guns combined with scram jet 'booster rockets' to carry shuttlesque space craft out of the atmosphere and hurl them into near earth orbit, however.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    The Co2 won't evaporate if left in a projectile during its journey.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Maybe Mars would be a better target.
     
  8. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    To cold there right?
     
  9. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    To cold there right?
     
  10. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    The planets resources are depleted enough already and you want to zap CO[sub]2[/sub] to the moon?!?

    You have to take into consideration certain base facts, for instance the planet is a "near" closed system (I say near, I mean technically it's open to stuff dropping from the heavens or expending a small amount of gas into space but for the most part the volume of materials doesn't change)

    Therefore the elements existent to the planet haven't suddenly increased, they've just changed their molecular structure, with the right equipment it's simple enough to change the structures as long as you have an abundant supply of energy.

    Terraforming the moon would obviously be difficult for points already made, one of them being not having a sufficient mass to hold a decent atmosphere. (In fact you only have to look to the Martian Atmosphere to get an idea what problems less mass could cause, their atmosphere rises higher than Earth's but is less dense. This means that you'd potentially have higher radiation levels and a lesser "Greenhouse" effect which can be a supportive system in the case where heat loss would cause a planet to freeze.)

    I had consider methods of manipulating the overall mass of a planet artificially, however for one it would require a great deal of energy and for two it would mess with the planets trajectory, after all increasing it's mass (Even artificially) will alter it's orbital path due to the suns gravitational pull.

    So technically messing with the Mass of the moon could cause us to lose our moon (which could have catastrophic tide effects and alter weather patterns, before stagnation) or we would collide with it sooner, rather than later.

    Incidentally Mar's atmosphere is mostly CO[sub]2[/sub], I just couldn't find any decent figures on Hydrogen content, because obviously having Hydrogen present allows for Water to be created from the already present CO[sub]2[/sub].
     
  11. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Couple of points.

    Even using advanced rail gun technology, the cost would be utterly prohibitive, so this is a non starter.

    However, the moon actually can hold an atmosphere, believe it or not. An item in New Scientist magazine some years back stated that an Earth density atmosphere on the moon would last about one million years before being lost to space. Of course, this is an eye blink in astronomical time, but is a long time by human standards.

    My own feeling is that, if humanity ever wanted to terraform the moon, the best source of atmosphere would be ice that is already in space, and thus does not need to be lifted out of a gravity well. Of course, this is centuries away before our species has that capability.

    Lifting a kilo from Earth would cost vastly more than moving the same kilo from orbit round Saturn to the moon. It would just take a lot longer. There is plenty of ice round Saturn.
     
  12. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    The moon always presents the same side to Earth, not to the sun.
     
  13. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    So basically what leaks out to space over a million years we could replace with Co2 or other greenhouse gasses to keep it constant in theory?
     
  14. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,652
    cat2only: have you done any back-of-the-envelope calculations about how much CO2 would need to be delivered, somehow, to the surface of the moon to create an atmosphere that plants will find amenable?

    How long do you estimate it would take to deliver enough solid (or liquid) CO2?
    What would the cost be in terms of electrical energy and how would the energy be produced?

    How large would the railguns need to be, what's the ballpark for launch velocity, and would large velocities cause any damage to the earth's atmosphere? What would the containers need be made of so that atmospheric friction and melting wasn't a problem--how would the containers keep the solid CO2 from melting or expanding suddenly and destroying the containers?
     
  15. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Not necessarily.

    The technology, industrial capacity and societal willpower that are needed to undertake such an adventure naturally puts another few abilities at one´s fingertips. The most important of these would be a (costly, but effective) series of reflectors (say, about 10 km dia.) that are made of very thin and reflective metals. Mars is already SO near the Goldilocks Zone that it wouldn't take more than a hundred or so to add enough light to the Martian surface to warm it up to our needs.

    ~String
     
  16. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    You could put a pressure relief valve on the back of the projo so it would open at the time of its highest heating which would allow for cooling as it vented off a small amount then re closing after it left the lower atmosphere. It would be in the lower atmosphere for less than 5 seconds and this would allow it to cool during that time period and prevent it from melting.
     
  17. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    Would more Co2 warm it up more also?
     
  18. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    Would more Co2 warm it up more also?
     
  19. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    I would think that the time spent in the atmosphere would be far to short to cause any real degree of sublimation.
     
  20. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    I tend to agree I think it would take more time for the heat to transfer.
     
  21. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Yep.

    In a few thousand years--around the same time humans will have altered their biology to so many different life forms that none of them will require a planetary habitat. So, why bother wasting your time on a pesky rock?

    ~String
     
  22. cat2only Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    334
    To make life better here.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    No, it is not too cold on Mars for CO2.
     

Share This Page