Anything in the mainstream media to do with the colonization
of Mars is a matter of total despair, and today’s Huffington Post article is a case in
point.
 |
| From wiki (rotation of Mars at opposition) |
The article is entitled: "Mars Colonists Won't Survive Unless This Deadly Problem is Solved".
'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'?
(Walter Scott, poem: Marmion, 1808)
 |
| Here's the artist's impression that accompanied the Huff article. Realizable goal - or misleading science fiction (at least for the foreseeable future)? |
No, I can't and won't leave a comment, not being signed up to Facebook (see small easily-overlooked print at end of Comments), and frankly having no wish to do so. (What's social networking got to do with posting serious comment to MSM web forums?).
The article is focused on a claim from MIT scientists that the cultivation of green plants in biodomes sould generate a surplus of oxygen. To which all I can say is: if that's considered t to be the most pressing of problems where colonization of Mars is concerned, then MIT has gone down in my estimation.
(Solution - off the top of my head: given that nitrates are a key commodity required for plant culture, and are probably not well provided for in Martian geology - absence of nitrifying bacteria in the soil etc- then one needs to synthesize them as we do on boring ol' Planet Earth? How? React some of that surplus oxygen with nitrogen (approx 2.7 % of the tenuous Martian atmosphere using a high temperature electric arc, as in the now superseded Birkeland-Eyde process (see link below). Convert the first formed nitric oxide (NO) first to nitrous acid (HNO2) then finally to nitric acid (HNO3) using water and more oxygen).
Further reading: see this passage from the wiki entry on Nitric Acid:
Prior to the introduction of the Haber process for the production of ammonia in 1913, nitric acid was produced using the Birkeland–Eyde process, also known as the arc process. This process is based upon the oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen by atmospheric oxygen to nitric oxide at very high temperatures. An electric arc was used to provide the high temperatures, and yields of up to 4% nitric oxide were obtained. The nitric oxide was cooled and oxidized by the remaining atmospheric oxygen to nitrogen dioxide, and this was subsequently absorbed in dilute nitric acid. The process was very energy intensive and was rapidly displaced by the Ostwald process once cheap ammonia became available.
The article is focused on a claim from MIT scientists that the cultivation of green plants in biodomes sould generate a surplus of oxygen. To which all I can say is: if that's considered t to be the most pressing of problems where colonization of Mars is concerned, then MIT has gone down in my estimation.
(Solution - off the top of my head: given that nitrates are a key commodity required for plant culture, and are probably not well provided for in Martian geology - absence of nitrifying bacteria in the soil etc- then one needs to synthesize them as we do on boring ol' Planet Earth? How? React some of that surplus oxygen with nitrogen (approx 2.7 % of the tenuous Martian atmosphere using a high temperature electric arc, as in the now superseded Birkeland-Eyde process (see link below). Convert the first formed nitric oxide (NO) first to nitrous acid (HNO2) then finally to nitric acid (HNO3) using water and more oxygen).
Further reading: see this passage from the wiki entry on Nitric Acid:
Prior to the introduction of the Haber process for the production of ammonia in 1913, nitric acid was produced using the Birkeland–Eyde process, also known as the arc process. This process is based upon the oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen by atmospheric oxygen to nitric oxide at very high temperatures. An electric arc was used to provide the high temperatures, and yields of up to 4% nitric oxide were obtained. The nitric oxide was cooled and oxidized by the remaining atmospheric oxygen to nitrogen dioxide, and this was subsequently absorbed in dilute nitric acid. The process was very energy intensive and was rapidly displaced by the Ostwald process once cheap ammonia became available.
First: the background. For years, nay decades, planet Mars has been
presented as basically colonizable, indeed liveable, but for the lack of oxygen. But there's H2O and smart physics, chemistry and even biology - like photosynthesis - so what's the problem, dimbo?
 | |
Er, haven't we forgotten something? |
Stuff
and nonsense. Yes, the lack of oxygen is probably solvable, at least in principle, provided water can be found, whether from ice or chemically combined in rocks, and released by electrolysis using nuclear, geothermal or solar power. Indeed the current article admits as much, albeit by photosynthesis in glasshouses, but it then goes on to claim that the greenhouse living arrangements would generate too
much oxygen from all those hothouse plants. Diddums.
The basic problem that no one with a pecuniary interest in
Mars exploration (read $$$$ and now Indian rupees) will admit to (or even hint at as a downside) is the lack of a dense Martian
atmosphere comparable to that of Earth's.
Ah, but do I hear you
say that Mars DOES have an atmosphere, albeit a thin one that can “be coped
with”, even if it’s thin. It can be ‘terraformed’ (jargon) you see to make it more "Earth-like". Yeah, right.
(I'll be reviewing the various proposals for that so-called terraforming later, to be added to the end of this posting).
(I'll be reviewing the various proposals for that so-called terraforming later, to be added to the end of this posting).
Still more stuff and nonsense, and self-serving nonsense at that. Yes,
Mars does have an atmosphere, with storms that whip up dust clouds etc as we are so often reminded in those starry (planetary?)-eyed and slickly-written NASA press-releases. But
there’s one tiny problem. Its atmospheric density and thus pressure is minuscule by Earth standards.. It’s
less than 1% of our own (see wiki entry at end), 0.6% to be precise (ball park figure, but no-one will be playing ball on parks in Mars without a space suit anytime soon).
 |
| From:http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Inorganic_Chemistry/Case_Studies/Case_Study%3A_Contrasting_Earth,_Mars_and_the_Moon%27s_Atmospheres |
Let me repeat: Mars’s
atmosphere’s is at least 100 times less
dense than our own. In fact it’s so thin that for all intents and purposes,
where human surviival is concerned, it’s more like the Moon, albeit with tiny
contamination with CO2/argon/nitrogen etc, than friendly life-supporting Earth's.
When you have an atmosphere that scarcely exists by Earth’s
standards, the problem is not so much one of lack of oxygen (or even an excess
once those terraformers have got busy) It’s lack of atmospheric pressure. One is
surrounded by a near-vacuum for all intents and purposes.
So you can’t take off
and hang up your pressurized space suit once you
arrive at Mars. You have to keep it on until pressurized living quarters has been
created. How? Well, that’s what they don’t tell us, all those folk who talk down to us lesser mortals as if we were a bunch of Neanderthals. They just bang on about the failure of Western (and now Eastern) civilization to invest on an industrial scale
in our exploration of the Solar System, going boldly bla bla la.
What they will never admit is that once you leave friendly
Planet Earth (even the Sahara is friendly by comparison with the rest of the
Solar system) is that you' re then out in an intensely hostile environment – and I
don’t mean just damaging cosmic radiation
and micrometeorites. It’s not just lack of oxygen. It’s the vacuum of space,
or even the near vacuum of the sizeable chunks of "habitable" rocky planets’ like Mars ("oh so more inviting than the Moon").
One
tiny leak in your pressurized space suit, or your pressurized space vehicle or glass house, and
one's an instant goner. Yes, you would simply explode. That's thanks to the pressure difference
between our pumped blood, accustomed, nay evolved to deal with a pressure equivalent to that capable of supporting a column of 30 or so inches of mercury (the latter being densest liquid on earth, probably the entire Universe) or more mundanely some 30 feet (yes, 30 feet!) of water), compared to our natural environment. One cannot simply summon up the latter if/when arriving at another planet. Indeed, I cannot recall reading any discussion of the 'pressure problem' in years of reading, despite reams on (easily) solving the need for oxygen.
 | |
| Click to ENLARGE. Note the reference to the all-importance Armstrong Limit that sets a lower limit on atmospheric pressure compatible with human survival. | Specificially (from wiki):
At or above the Armstrong limit, exposed bodily liquids such
as saliva, tears, and the liquids wetting the alveoli within the lungs—but not vascular
blood (blood within the circulatory system)—will boil away without a
pressure suit
and no amount of breathable oxygen delivered by any means will sustain life for more than
a few minutes.
|
How might the money be better spent? How about tackling the problems of encroaching desert, in the Sahel and elsewhere? Or the problem of increasing salinification (salt-overload) in irrigated regions, even the developed world like the USA?
Saturday October 11
Now let's take a look at what wiki has to say on the subject of 'terraforming'.
First, what is meant by that term (ed: partially de-formatted to remove the distraction of blue hyperlinks - now underlined only).
Terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the theoretical process of deliberately modifying its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to the biosphere of Earth to make it habitable by Earth-like life.
The term "terraforming" is sometimes used more generally as a synonym for planetary engineering, although some consider this more general usage an error.[citation needed] The concept of terraforming developed from both science fiction and actual science. The term was coined by Jack Williamson in a science-fiction story (Collision Orbit) published during 1942 in Astounding Science Fiction, but the concept may pre-date this work.
Based on experiences with Earth, the environment of a planet can be altered deliberately; however, the feasibility of creating an unconstrained planetary biosphere that mimics Earth on another planet has yet to be verified.
Secondly. note the focus on Mars especially:
"Mars
is usually considered to be the most likely candidate for terraforming. Much
study has been done concerning the possibility of heating the planet and
altering its atmosphere, and NASA has even hosted debates on the subject. Several potential
methods of altering the climate of Mars may fall
within humanity's technological capabilities, but at present the economic
resources required to do so are far beyond that which any government or society
is willing to allocate to it. The long timescales and practicality of
terraforming are the subject of debate. Other unanswered questions relate to
the ethics, logistics,
economics,
politics,
and methodology
of altering the environment of an extraterrestrial world."
So what measures might (a) be taken in principle to make Mars more 'habitable', and (b) are they achievable on a realistic time scale such as to justify the ongoing commercial promotion of Mars colonization and surrounding media hype?
There are two chief priorities: first is to ensure a supply of oxygen gas, buffered with an excess of nitrogen 'buffer'. comparable to approx 20/80 ratio that exists on Earth. Such a mix would be fed initially to individual spacesuits, then to entire enclosed biodomes, and then, optimistically (but no longer in the realms of science fiction we are assured) the entire planet. Second, even if that optimum oxygen/nitrogen mix can be made, it still means wearing a pressurized space suit unless living quarters are pressurized to be comparable to 'normal' terrestrial barometric pressure, while recognizing that can vary considerably depending on height above sea level. Again we are assured that by 'terraforming' it might be possible to make the Red Planet's entire atmosphere more Earth-like, and at least survivable without a pressurized space suit.
Details?
Well, one has to think big, really big, and what could be bigger than this thinking that now follows (again from wiki):
Carbon dioxide sublimation
There is presently enough carbon dioxide (CO ) as ice in the Martian south pole and absorbed by regolith (soil) on Mars that, if sublimated to gas by a climate warming of only a few degrees, would increase the atmospheric pressure to 30 kilopascals (0.30 atm), comparable to the altitude of the peak of Mount Everest, where the atmospheric pressure is 33.7 kilopascals (0.333 atm). Although this would not be breathable by humans, it is above the Armstrong limit and would eliminate the present need for pressure suits
Sounds easy doesn't it - to do to Mars what we are doing (it would seem) to Planet Earth, namely warming the atmosphere and/or surface waters through our activities, notably burning of fossil fuels. Why not do the same to Mars, seeing as how we are so good at it (without really trying)? A few degrees rise of temperature is all it would take to make that solid CO2 snow ("dry ice") sublime, i.e. change direct from solid to gas, and hey presto, the greenhouse effect of extra infrared back-radiation sees to the rest.
But what about practicalities? How does one kick start the process? Is it reversible once started? Or is there a risk of runaway 'global' warming, the fate of poor old Venus? Would that matter, given Mars is so much further away from the Sun, indeed an chilly uncongenial place compared with Earth (temperate latitudes at least).
Here's one proposed method. Take a deep breath (but not if you have the misfortune to arrive on 'post-pristine' Mars after this means of 'terraforming'). Again, from wiki:
Use of fluorine compounds
Because long-term climate stability would be required for sustaining a human population, the use of especially powerful fluorine-bearing greenhouse gases, possibly including sulfur hexafluoride *or halocarbons such as chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) and perfluorocarbons (or PFCs), has been suggested. These gases are the most cited candidates for artificial insertion into the Martian atmosphere because they produce a strong effect as a greenhouse gas, thousands of times stronger than CO2. This can conceivably be done relatively cheaply by sending rockets with payloads of compressed CFCs on collision courses with Mars. When the rockets crash onto the surface they release their payloads into the atmosphere. A steady barrage of these "CFC rockets" would need to be sustained for a little over a decade while Mars changes chemically and becomes warmer.
In order to sublimate the south polar CO2 glaciers, Mars would require the introduction of approximately 0.3 microbars of CFCs into Mars's atmosphere. This is equivalent to a mass of approximately 39 million metric tons. This is about three times the amount of CFC manufactured on Earth from 1972 to 1992 (when CFC production was banned by international treaty). Mineralogical surveys of Mars estimate the elemental presence of fluorine in the bulk composition of Mars at 32 ppm by mass vs. 19.4 ppm for the Earth.
A proposal to mine fluorine-containing minerals as a source of CFCs and PFCs is supported by the belief that because these minerals are expected to be at least as common on Mars as on Earth, this process could sustain the production of sufficient quantities of optimal greenhouse compounds ... to maintain Mars at 'comfortable' temperatures, as a method of maintaining an Earth-like atmosphere produced previously by some other means.
* Sulphur hexafluoride
From wiki:Like helium, sulfur hexafluoride is a non-toxic gas, yet by displacing oxygen in the lungs, it also carries the risk of asphyxia if too much is inhaledSulfur hexafluoride has an anesthetic potency slightly lower than nitrous oxide.
That makes SF6 highly anaesthetic ( I had teeth extracted as a child under N2O aka laughing gas general anaesthetic. I can still smell that rubber gas mask...
What's the point of colonizing Mars if one first has to pollute its minuscule atmosphere with a polluting, suffocating anaesthetic gas, SF6, simply to force CO2 sublimation from the poles, simply to achieve an atmospheric pressure greater than the Armstrong limit, simply to be able to shed one's pressurized space suit, while STILL NOT BEING ABLE TO BREATHE THAT MAN-MADE SUBSTITUTE for air, while still needing a constant supply of O2/N2? And we are asked to believe that plans for Mars colonization are well-advanced? Who are they trying to kid? A short visit maybe, probably with no possibility of a return -trips initially (non-suicidees need not apply).
More to come.
Further (sceptical) reading:
Five hurdles to conquer before colonizing Mars
Fame at last: this posting currently (October 10) appears on Google search (mars colonization) on PAGE 23!!!! I shall endeavour not to let it go to my head.
Typical quote from those who should know better (my bolding):
"Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals. It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Reminder (see earlier graphic): MARS HAS VIRTUALLY NO ATMOSPHERE, VIEWED FROM AN ANTHROPIC STANDPOINT. IT'S ESSENTIALLY NO DIFFERENT FROM THE MOON, SHOULD YOU HAVE THE MISFORTUNE TO GET THE SMALLEST LEAK IN YOUR PRESSURIZED SPACE SUIT.
Why are these professors (see headline) allowed to get away year after year, decade after decade, with spouting such intelligence-insulting, science-defying nonsense?
Update: 13 October
There's now a new press-release from the MIT, setting out more detailed reasons why colonization of Mars is simply not a realistic proposition at the present time:
Update: 13 October
There's now a new press-release from the MIT, setting out more detailed reasons why colonization of Mars is simply not a realistic proposition at the present time:
It's in today's Mail. More later.
Btw: one does not "suffocate" from excess oxygen. Certainly it's toxic, and lung function deteriorates when one breathes the pure gas, but it's hardly "suffocation", except maybe for terminal fluid secretion. "Oxygen toxicity" might be a better description.
Update Wed Oct 15Today's Telegraph has now picked up on essentially the same story. Bless 'em.
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Mars is by far the most
promising for sustained colonization and development, the authors
conclude, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and,
crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant
water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals.
It is the Earth's second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars takes about six months using the most favorable launch
option and current chemical rocket technology.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-10-professors-urge-one-way-martian-colonization.html#jCp
No comments:
Post a Comment