Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus

In article ,
Ian Stirling wrote:
With the amount of material processing to get oxygen, you may as well
make a tiny (comparatively) amount of glass, and float this on the top
of the atmosphere at the .1PSI or so altitude.
This helps to completely avoid the atmospheric decay problem, and you
can tint the glass to create pretty pictures, and remove UV.

And finance the project by selling advertising space on the glass. :-)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing
Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the
very get go.

Pray tell how you terraform in a total vacuum.

For starters, toss as much CO2/dry-ice and damn near anything else you
can imagine at that sucker, until there's less of a vacuum.

Diverting NEOs into our moon should also help to force a little
atmosphere out of that basalt or whatever else is there to behold.

Besides, terraforming results need not be limited to that nearly naked
surface. Even a wussy 0.01 bar result would be a whole lot better off
than whatever's there as is.
-
Brad Guth




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message


Mars is pretty near vacuum.

A several PSI near-pure O2 atmosphere would support life, and last
several thousand years before decaying.
Achieving this is 'interesting'.

With the amount of material processing to get oxygen, you may as well
make a tiny (comparatively) amount of glass, and float this on the top
of the atmosphere at the .1PSI or so altitude.

This helps to completely avoid the atmospheric decay problem, and you
can tint the glass to create pretty pictures, and remove UV.

Glass domes should actually work for Mars or that of our moon. Basalt
itself might be sufficient for creating such domes of glass like
material, that'll filter UV, tough enough and otherwise locally
repairable to boot.

Not sure about Mars, however our moon should have a cache of silica to
work with.

Before we accomplish such glass domes, perhaps a few large POOFs could
manage to retain a low atmospheric pressure of perhaps several psi.

What's the thermal range of a good POOF worth these days?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message


And finance the project by selling advertising space on the glass. :-)

OK, but the extracted He3 plus whatever other cosmic morgue worth of
nifty stuff should more than pay for everything.

What's a kg of moon yellowcake that's 90% pure worth these days?
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:0b68ce4aaf05858475a5a81874cc9221.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing
Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the
very get go.

Pray tell how you terraform in a total vacuum.

For starters, toss as much CO2/dry-ice and damn near anything else you
can imagine at that sucker, until there's less of a vacuum.

Diverting NEOs into our moon should also help to force a little
atmosphere out of that basalt or whatever else is there to behold.

Besides, terraforming results need not be limited to that nearly naked
surface. Even a wussy 0.01 bar result would be a whole lot better off
than whatever's there as is.

I'm for it, when do we start?


--
Denis Loubet

http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com

Ian Stirling wrote:
With the amount of material processing to get oxygen, you may as well
make a tiny (comparatively) amount of glass, and float this on the top
of the atmosphere at the .1PSI or so altitude.

Something almost like this has been suggested to combat global warming -
billions of mylar balloons floating at very high altitude reflecting
back sunlight.
Although this idea sounds crazy from the aspect of decreasing air
pressure at altitude causing the balloons to burst, such balloons do
exist; they are called superpressure balloons and are used to study
upper altitude wind patterns as they can fly for months at a time:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/s...04/marcel.html

Pat

Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.space.policy Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing
Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the
very get go.
Pray tell how you terraform in a total vacuum.

Mars is pretty near vacuum.

Not saying it would be easy or even possible on Mars either. It's just
as usual Brad comes out with a wacky assertion and expects people to
just take his word for it.

Brad Guth wrote:
"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message


Brad Guth wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:4b2adc265e10d0ba4f29e16f81e3d4e8.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Terraforming the moon is going to become much easier than our doing
Mars, and that's going to directly benefit 100% of humanity from the
very get go.
Pray tell how you terraform in a total vacuum.

For starters, toss as much CO2/dry-ice and damn near anything else you
can imagine at that sucker, until there's less of a vacuum.

Diverting NEOs into our moon should also help to force a little
atmosphere out of that basalt or whatever else is there to behold.

Besides, terraforming results need not be limited to that nearly naked
surface. Even a wussy 0.01 bar result would be a whole lot better off
than whatever's there as is.

Uhuh, so all it would take would be to identify and divert enough
extinction level event comets so they hit the moon (and not us)? And
then keep doing it?

And in which reality is this even remotely feasible?

"Denis Loubet" wrote in message


I'm for it, when do we start?

Perhaps we should start off by way of getting rid of as much nuclear
waste and spent reactor fuel that we're obviously not smart enough to
deal with anyway.

Then compressing as much CO2 into multi-tonnage blocks of dry-ice should
represent another win-win for the old save thy terrestrial environment
butt gipper.

Possibly with a radium core sequestered within each multi-block or
sphere of dry-ice, whereas a good mass-driver method could be utilized
for getting that nasty stuff past the moon's L1 point of no-return.

Of course, if those smart Chinese folks ever got their LSE-CM/ISS up and
running, as then it would be rather extremely easy to terraform that
moon by simply litho impacting that naked deck with itself, thus forcing
O2 out of all that nasty basalt and other cosmic debris that's
supposedly polluted with He3.

I believe more than a half dozen nations currently have the necessary
rockets and payload hauling capacity, which should be put to good use
instead of applied on behalf of WW-III. Of course the environmental
pollution from having created and launched all of those fly-by-rocket
missions of terraforming our moon is going to impose a fairly
substantial negative environmental impact, but that's simply the
unfortunate price that we'll all have to live with, instead of WW-III.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Cardinal Chunder" wrote in message


Uhuh, so all it would take would be to identify and divert enough
extinction level event comets so they hit the moon (and not us)? And
then keep doing it?

And in which reality is this even remotely feasible?

I didn't say it would be easy nor all that cheap. I do believe we have
sufficient NEO diversion capability for the sorts of stuff that not too
terribly massive. If not, perhaps that capability should become our
priority No.1 before it's too late.

Orchestrating a few retrograde impacts at 30+ km/s would obviously
obtain the most atmospheric generating bang for our hard earned
buck/euro. I'm thinking some of those lithobraking or termination
retrograde encounters should easily exceed 60 km/s.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG